Author Topic: Coronavirus Concerns  (Read 233985 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4770 on: July 06, 2020, 07:44:32 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16345
  • Tommy Points: 1760
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus. 

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4771 on: July 06, 2020, 08:02:06 PM »

Offline NKY fan

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1086
  • Tommy Points: 55
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4772 on: July 06, 2020, 08:20:03 PM »

Offline blink

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10712
  • Tommy Points: 754
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

I don't know how anyone at this point can state what is in bold with a straight face. 
In the US alone - 3,039,000+ cases, over 132,000 deaths in 3.1/2 months.

I mean how is that blown out of proportion?  Seriously I don't get it.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4773 on: July 06, 2020, 08:29:39 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12180
  • Tommy Points: 1477
Not thrilled Trump is coming to NH this weekend.  At least Sununu is telling everyone to wear a mask.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4774 on: July 06, 2020, 08:40:33 PM »

Offline NKY fan

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1086
  • Tommy Points: 55
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

I don't know how anyone at this point can state what is in bold with a straight face. 
In the US alone - 3,039,000+ cases, over 132,000 deaths in 3.1/2 months.

I mean how is that blown out of proportion?  Seriously I don't get it.
Well one of the likeliest next VP of USA and why not even the de facto future president of the country Keisha Bottoms just announced she tested positive ... She didnít seem terribly concerned or incapable of doing her job. Maybe the worst is behind us

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4775 on: July 06, 2020, 09:38:32 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18896
  • Tommy Points: 1379
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

I don't know how anyone at this point can state what is in bold with a straight face. 
In the US alone - 3,039,000+ cases, over 132,000 deaths in 3.1/2 months.

I mean how is that blown out of proportion?  Seriously I don't get it.

Isn't it just trolling?

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4776 on: July 06, 2020, 10:30:47 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16345
  • Tommy Points: 1760
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

I don't know how anyone at this point can state what is in bold with a straight face. 
In the US alone - 3,039,000+ cases, over 132,000 deaths in 3.1/2 months.

I mean how is that blown out of proportion?  Seriously I don't get it.
Well one of the likeliest next VP of USA and why not even the de facto future president of the country Keisha Bottoms just announced she tested positive ... She didnít seem terribly concerned or incapable of doing her job. Maybe the worst is behind us

KLB may or may not have serious symptoms.  A 41 year old broadway performer just died after a long battle with Covid.  KLB and Nick Cordero are 2 people.  Do you want to name another person who had an easy time and I'll name another person who had a hard time?

I believe I have for umpteenth time raised the question of hospitalizations, intubations, respirators, re-oxygenation... with really no response (you mentioned long-term issues might be a problem -- but what I'm saying hospitalization and serious illness IS a problem). For you to suggest that this is like the flu is really frightening to me.   The more these words are provided to the people who are aching to hear them (it's not that bad; KLB is fine; it's like the flu...) the fewer people engage in distancing, mask-wearing, staying home, washing...   

If you don't know (I mean KNOW) that this is not really much worse than the flu, I'd ask that you stop guessing about it.  Not worth it (is it?) if one person hears you and feels confirmed to go mask-less. KLB aside, hospitalization data do not seem to support the idea that this is anything like the flu.  Perhaps ask anyone who has worked in an emergency room or ICU for the past 10 years whether they've seen a flu season like this.  Do you hear the nurses?  DO you hear the doctors? Or are you deciding not to listen?


60% of Covid patients in Houston are under 50
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/505052-60-percent-of-coronavirus-patients-in-major-houston

Texas hospitalized over 8000 patients on Sunday
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/texas-sees-record-number-of-covid-19-hospitalizations


Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4777 on: July 07, 2020, 01:11:02 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41862
  • Tommy Points: -27135
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

I don't know how anyone at this point can state what is in bold with a straight face. 
In the US alone - 3,039,000+ cases, over 132,000 deaths in 3.1/2 months.

I mean how is that blown out of proportion?  Seriously I don't get it.

Isn't it just trolling?

Thereís a difference between ďnot seriousĒ and ďblown out of proportion ď, isnít there?

I see both sides of the debate.  Itís very serious; it will likely be the third largest killer of Americans this year.  At the same time, might it have been blown out of proportion?  Itís on pace to kill 400,000 or so Americans this year.  Thatís a huge number, but still less than cancer and heart disease.  Was it worth destroying our economy over?

I think thatís a debate that will go on for years. 
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4778 on: July 07, 2020, 07:05:47 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16345
  • Tommy Points: 1760
Interesting read from annoying (imo) business commentator Richard Quest following his mild case of COVID-19.  The embedded video is not worth watching - itís when he announced he had it.  But the article discusses his experience in the aftermath.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/health/richard-quest-covid-wellness-intl/index.html

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4779 on: July 07, 2020, 07:15:18 AM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31628
  • Tommy Points: 2456
Saw two nice looking fellows, early 20's  not rednecks , but probably recent college grads in a nice BMW , dressed nice , clean cut .  Got out of their car totally ignored the must wear mask sign at the grocery store , went on in like they owned it .    So they looked too upper scale not to,be up on news or can't afford a computer . I think they ...plain  Just don't care ,  Im out of state and ill do,as i please.  The  goverment is weak .  Law enforcement is weak .  It shows in our numbers . 

I think tthey are just part of the " ME FIRST",  poorly raised gen of I could care less ,  i 'll bar hop , i 'll go do as I,please ...screw the rest of the world .  I dn't care about helping anybody BUT ME .  My job is to party hard and have a good time.  Im young ...its what I must do,  its my right , I can't waste time worrying about covid and other people dying !   People can't see past their own noses.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 07:21:21 AM by SHAQATTACK »

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4780 on: July 07, 2020, 10:18:41 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23127
  • Tommy Points: 9348
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

I don't know how anyone at this point can state what is in bold with a straight face. 
In the US alone - 3,039,000+ cases, over 132,000 deaths in 3.1/2 months.

I mean how is that blown out of proportion?  Seriously I don't get it.

Isn't it just trolling?

Thereís a difference between ďnot seriousĒ and ďblown out of proportion ď, isnít there?

I see both sides of the debate.  Itís very serious; it will likely be the third largest killer of Americans this year.  At the same time, might it have been blown out of proportion?  Itís on pace to kill 400,000 or so Americans this year.  Thatís a huge number, but still less than cancer and heart disease.  Was it worth destroying our economy over?

I think thatís a debate that will go on for years. 
considering cancer and heart disease aren't contagious and that you don't need to mask up or maintain physical separation from people with those conditions to avoid catching them, I don't think there's much to debate.  throw in the current blowing up of cases due to opening up the country after a couple months and it's looking like the debate will be why we didn't hold the line on opening longer rather than shutting down at all.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4781 on: July 07, 2020, 10:55:41 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12180
  • Tommy Points: 1477
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

I don't know how anyone at this point can state what is in bold with a straight face. 
In the US alone - 3,039,000+ cases, over 132,000 deaths in 3.1/2 months.

I mean how is that blown out of proportion?  Seriously I don't get it.

Isn't it just trolling?

Thereís a difference between ďnot seriousĒ and ďblown out of proportion ď, isnít there?

I see both sides of the debate.  Itís very serious; it will likely be the third largest killer of Americans this year.  At the same time, might it have been blown out of proportion?  Itís on pace to kill 400,000 or so Americans this year.  Thatís a huge number, but still less than cancer and heart disease.  Was it worth destroying our economy over?

I think thatís a debate that will go on for years. 
considering cancer and heart disease aren't contagious and that you don't need to mask up or maintain physical separation from people with those conditions to avoid catching them, I don't think there's much to debate.  throw in the current blowing up of cases due to opening up the country after a couple months and it's looking like the debate will be why we didn't hold the line on opening longer rather than shutting down at all.

Let's be clear here, though, this is entirely dependent on where you live.

None of this seems to particularly apply here in NH.  The data supports that.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4782 on: July 07, 2020, 11:04:33 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5055
  • Tommy Points: 829
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

I don't know how anyone at this point can state what is in bold with a straight face. 
In the US alone - 3,039,000+ cases, over 132,000 deaths in 3.1/2 months.

I mean how is that blown out of proportion?  Seriously I don't get it.

Isn't it just trolling?

Thereís a difference between ďnot seriousĒ and ďblown out of proportion ď, isnít there?

I see both sides of the debate.  Itís very serious; it will likely be the third largest killer of Americans this year.  At the same time, might it have been blown out of proportion?  Itís on pace to kill 400,000 or so Americans this year.  Thatís a huge number, but still less than cancer and heart disease.  Was it worth destroying our economy over?

I think thatís a debate that will go on for years.

Well, let's keep clear:  The reason why it's on pace to kill "only" 400,000 is because imposed social distancing, masks and other mitigations specifically to slow down the propagation of the virus.   Sans such efforts, if left to propagate normally, ala the seasonal flue, the almost certain results would have been death counts far, far above that number already.  There would have been a huge economic cost to that as well.

I'd also like to point out that not ALL economic activity has been shut down.   Some sectors have been hit harder than others.  Others have had to change the way they do business.  If we had any real leadership at the top of government we should have been more than capable of mitigating that hardship.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4783 on: July 07, 2020, 11:21:29 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16345
  • Tommy Points: 1760
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

I don't know how anyone at this point can state what is in bold with a straight face. 
In the US alone - 3,039,000+ cases, over 132,000 deaths in 3.1/2 months.

I mean how is that blown out of proportion?  Seriously I don't get it.

Isn't it just trolling?

Thereís a difference between ďnot seriousĒ and ďblown out of proportion ď, isnít there?

I see both sides of the debate.  Itís very serious; it will likely be the third largest killer of Americans this year.  At the same time, might it have been blown out of proportion?  Itís on pace to kill 400,000 or so Americans this year.  Thatís a huge number, but still less than cancer and heart disease.  Was it worth destroying our economy over?

I think thatís a debate that will go on for years.

Undoubtedly correct that the debate will live on.  But not sure I would say the economy has been destroyed.  Certainly was thrown for a loop -- and many are struggling.  But it's not destroyed and jobs are coming back.   I don't want to minimize loss of jobs and income -- that is a very big deal and I am definitely interested in how we'll quantify this aspect of the shutdown.  At first blush -- as compared to death, hospitalizations, near-death, long-term illness, permanent physical damage -- I think these are all worse outcomes than being unemployed for 3-6 months.  It's not a happy choice -- I don't wish long-term unemployment or the loss of a business on anyone. 

When everything shut-down initially, we didn't know what we were dealing with -- we had huge fears (legit) of over-run hospitals, lack of PPE, no testing...  So much was unknown and we had to make big decisions based on insufficient information. Everyone made mistakes from Fauci to Trump to governors to mayors, etc.  I don't question the shut-down in retrospect because we just didn't know what the right thing to do was.  And rather than mock the pandemic (Gaetz gas mask) or call it a hoax, we opted to play it safe...  And now we know better and know how to keep things (most things) open and simultaneously mitigate transmission -- and we still have to battle with those who refused to play along. 

Re: Coronavirus Concerns
« Reply #4784 on: July 07, 2020, 11:45:46 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41862
  • Tommy Points: -27135
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
For those really interested in the Infection Fatality Rate, Nature magazine, has a fairly detailed report on current studies

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

One thing that is clear is that there is no single definitive IFR.   Rates are fairly regional and depend a lot on demographics, health care access and such.


The number for Spain correlates with saltlover's back-of-the-envelope estimate of 1.2%.

The article also points to results that show that the IFR varies tremendously across age groups, jumping to ~5.6% for people aged 65 or over.

The 'exact' numbers, as many have noted, will not be resolved for some time, as more data and analysis is going to be required.  And of course, the exact accuracy of many of the numbers is subject to question for various reasons.  But we can probably definitely assert at this point that it is several times more lethal than the seasonal flu (typically around 0.1%).
At this point even the biggest trump supporters have realized that this virus is deadlier than any seasonal flu in the last 30-40 ish years. The question is whether itís deadly enough to justify lockdowns and economic depression. Is it deadly enough to justify spreading of fear 24/7 via news outlets?

I do feel like a broken record, but even if one were to stipulate the Covid-19 is only as deadly as the seasonal flu, a pretty potent argument could be made that it is far more contagious (if nothing else, due to there being no immunity or vaccine) and there are far more complications as those who have suffered lung-related symptoms but didnít die would assert.  Fatality rate does not tell the story of this virus
In terms of the virus being so contagious - how do you explain that on the night the NBA closed down, Rudy Gobert tested positive and only Donovan Mitchell was the other member of the jazz organization to test positive ... so there you have 40-50 people flying around the continent every other day ... 15 men sweating and  bumping each other in games and practice every day. Gobert ďunĒintentionally spreading the virus to everybody.... Players and coaches hanging out at the locker rooms together  for hours every day... and yet only 2 guys tested positive 🤔...
 maybe isnít that contagious or maybe 95% of peopleís immune systems immediately identify the covid treat and neutralize it..

I keep grappling with what point you are trying to make.  Are you saying -- not so bad, this Covid?  Not really a thing?  We are making too much of it?  Just like the flu?   Maybe you've said it already (you probably have) and I've missed it. Sorry if I did.   

If you think it isn't so bad, that's fine -- you don't know and I can't claim to be better informed than you.  I have wondered though -- about 8 times on this thread with no response-- if people might consider the survivors -- hospitalizations, intubations, re-oxygenated blood, lung and heart damage, and the chronic or long-term possibilities for potentially millions of Americans. And what of the associated long-term healthcare costs?

I see why someone would challenge fatality rates. But... I fail to see what a lower fatality rate really means in terms of how we would (or should) approach things any differently.   I don't think too many people remain who want to close everything down.  I think most people think we should do our best to prevent infection -- that this would be good for people's health... and be good for the economy. Maybe we could wear masks, distance, wash  hands, stay home if we can -- and perhaps not have 50,000 people a day being diagnosed with the virus.
What Iím trying to say is that itís very complicated to figure out what the impact on society this virus is. At this point I lean towards blown out of proportion but a little more serious than a deadly flu season.
The concern about long lasting effects is legitimate .. the studies about long lasting effects on survivors ... Iím not sure. You only have 3-4 months of observation of those long lasting effects and a handful of human data points ... I really donít know.

I don't know how anyone at this point can state what is in bold with a straight face. 
In the US alone - 3,039,000+ cases, over 132,000 deaths in 3.1/2 months.

I mean how is that blown out of proportion?  Seriously I don't get it.

Isn't it just trolling?

Thereís a difference between ďnot seriousĒ and ďblown out of proportion ď, isnít there?

I see both sides of the debate.  Itís very serious; it will likely be the third largest killer of Americans this year.  At the same time, might it have been blown out of proportion?  Itís on pace to kill 400,000 or so Americans this year.  Thatís a huge number, but still less than cancer and heart disease.  Was it worth destroying our economy over?

I think thatís a debate that will go on for years. 
considering cancer and heart disease aren't contagious and that you don't need to mask up or maintain physical separation from people with those conditions to avoid catching them, I don't think there's much to debate.  throw in the current blowing up of cases due to opening up the country after a couple months and it's looking like the debate will be why we didn't hold the line on opening longer rather than shutting down at all.

Iíll concede cancer, but I bet you could save way more lives from heart disease than weíve saved from Covid, with much less of an economic impact.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.