COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gelsons Dad said:
For those who think not enough is being done and the world should go into shut down mode maybe just a little context.
Every day around 3,500 people die in road traffic accidents.
In total there are currently 4000 deaths attributed to COVID-19.

Where do you strike the balance? If there were 3500 deaths per day from COVID I would understand the idea of locking down movement but why is death by RTA ok then?

It's a virus which will never have the same death rate as things which carry a far greater risk that we accept. If it wasn't for the hype it would go unnoticed like the recent Ebola outbreak which killed about 2500 people but was not reported at all in the mainstream media.
Click to expand...
False equivalency there bud.

The reaction from governments is to try and stop the virus from taking charge and running wild in the global population. The last unchecked virus with similar fatality rates and R0’s was Spanish Flu that killed 50-100m people worldwide.

That’s what they’re trying to stop, not 4,000 deaths.

And 3,500 RTA deaths a day isn’t just accepted. That’s why we have driving licenses, speed limits, speed camera, seat belts, crash testing, motorcycle helmets, traffic police and a thousand other measures designed to limit the amount of deaths worldwide despite the fact that some 3-4 billion use a car every day.
 
Last edited:
Gelsons Dad said:
For those who think not enough is being done and the world should go into shut down mode maybe just a little context.
Every day around 3,500 people die in road traffic accidents.
In total there are currently 4000 deaths attributed to COVID-19.

Where do you strike the balance? If there were 3500 deaths per day from COVID I would understand the idea of locking down movement but why is death by RTA ok then?

It's a virus which will never have the same death rate as things which carry a far greater risk that we accept. If it wasn't for the hype it would go unnoticed like the recent Ebola outbreak which killed about 2500 people but was not reported at all in the mainstream media.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Spain stopping flights from and to Italy.

And next two rounds of La Liga behind closed doors.
 
Gelsons Dad said:
For those who think not enough is being done and the world should go into shut down mode maybe just a little context.
Every day around 3,500 people die in road traffic accidents.
In total there are currently 4000 deaths attributed to COVID-19.

Where do you strike the balance? If there were 3500 deaths per day from COVID I would understand the idea of locking down movement but why is death by RTA ok then?

It's a virus which will never have the same death rate as things which carry a far greater risk that we accept. If it wasn't for the hype it would go unnoticed like the recent Ebola outbreak which killed about 2500 people but was not reported at all in the mainstream media.
Click to expand...
And we do everything we can to prevent RTA and save their victims.
What has been said by many experts, included the one in this great interview

is that there's such a thing as a society risk, a general population risk. This virus has a low personal risk but a high society risk, and that's why it might be difficult for some to grasp the dangers of it. Society risk means that the virus can easily overwhelm the health system because it requires many to be hospitalised (even when not life threatening) and we don't have a specific cure nor a vaccine for it, and when the health system is overwhelmed things go south not just for coronavirus patients but for all patients. An overwhelmed health system can then cause problems for all parts of society, economy, jobs etc.
 
Gelsons Dad said:
The 50-100m deaths from spanish Flu has been revised down to 20-50m. In an age where they thought it was caused by bacterial infection, there were no anti-virals, there were no antibiotics to treat the associated pneumonia infections, there was no WHO to monitor and advise and half the world was under censorship due to the war. That is a false equivalency.
Click to expand...


Not sure if the figure is 20 million or 100 million it alters his argument in fairness.
 
Gelsons Dad said:
In an age where they thought it was caused by bacterial infection, there were no anti-virals, there were no antibiotics to treat the associated pneumonia infections, there was no WHO to monitor and advise and half the world was under censorship due to the war. That is a false equivalency.
Click to expand...
Hahaha fucking lol. You quote RTA, I quote the last such global virus epidemic and you say I’m the one with a false equivalency! Brilliant.

So yes we have WHO and Anti-Virals and antibiotics AND YET the fatality rate is still somewhere between 1-4%. That means 50m would still die if 70% of the world was infected (@1% and 200m at 4%).

And we will agree to disagree whether it was 20m, 50m or 100m. They’re all within a magnitude though so I’m not sure how much better you believe 20-50m is, in real word terms. Let’s take 50m as a mid-point. Using your 3,500 RTA deaths per day, that’s equivalent to 39 years and one months worth of road deaths.
 
Gelsons Dad said:
The 50-100m deaths from spanish Flu has been revised down to 20-50m. In an age where they thought it was caused by bacterial infection, there were no anti-virals, there were no antibiotics to treat the associated pneumonia infections, there was no WHO to monitor and advise and half the world was under censorship due to the war. That is a false equivalency.
Click to expand...
But there was less movement of people as well
 
Gelsons Dad said:
The 50-100m deaths from spanish Flu has been revised down to 20-50m. In an age where they thought it was caused by bacterial infection, there were no anti-virals, there were no antibiotics to treat the associated pneumonia infections, there was no WHO to monitor and advise and half the world was under censorship due to the war. That is a false equivalency.
Click to expand...
The whole point of the world's reaction is to spread the infection over a longer time period giving a better chance for health services to cope with the extra demand. Left to go unchecked, there would be a lot of additional deaths due to health services being overwhelmed and unable to do their day job. In reality most people will get it eventually and it's a much better idea to spread that infection over a couple of years than a couple of months to give the most at risk the best chance of getting through it, and to stop a sizeable percentage of the population being off sick at once which would exacerbate any consequences.
 
You can’t downplay this with comparisons with regular flu, RTA or even starvation death numbers.
 
SWP's back said:
Hahaha fucking lol. You quote RTA, I quote the last such global virus epidemic and you say I’m the one with a false equivalency! Brilliant.

So yes we have WHO and Anti-Virals and antibiotics AND YET the fatality rate is still somewhere between 1-4%. That means 50m would still die if 70% of the world was infected (@1% and 200m at 4%).
Click to expand...
Technically there have been 2 other pandemic (and a few near pandemic) events since 1918/19. The so-called Asian flu of 1957/8 and the so-called Hong Kong flu of 1968/9. The one in the fifties was the most transmissable but killed less than the one in the sixties. 'Spanish flu' is difficult to use as a baseline, other than its CFR, because the onset of symptoms and death was a terribly quick process in so many.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Asian-flu-of-1957
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
Technically there have been 2 other pandemic (and a few near pandemic) events since 1918/19. The so-called Asian flu of 1957/8 and the so-called Hong Kong flu of 1968/9. The one in the fifties was the most transmissable but killed less than the one in the sixties. 'Spanish flu' is difficult to use as a baseline, other than its CFR, because the onset of symptoms and death was a terribly quick process in so many.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Asian-flu-of-1957
Click to expand...
Just going off the all the experts saying this is the most serious viral outbreak since 1918 mate.
 
So far we've had comparisons on here with malaria, ebola, cancer, flu, RTAs and the common cold, none of which have any logic at all.
How about we have one with terrorism to complete the set.
Or maybe mass shootings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top