Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

#21

Post by pmorici »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #20
ghthor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Masks are not zero cost, they are emotionally and physically taxing. I not wearing a mask if I'm not sick.

Masks are nasty and I hate them. Most people using them have no idea how to use them and seem to think wearing a mask is sort of like wearing your +2 Item Of Immunity from The Game Of Covid19 and you don't need to do anything differently. They just magically help, no matter how much stupid stuff you do. My son said he saw someone wiping down a shopping cart with a wipe. It fell on the floor and and they picked it bac…

"It fell on the floor and and they picked it back up and kept wiping down the cart with it."

Why do you think this a problem? If it is a disinfectant wipe it doesn't matter it just made the floor a little cleaner.

Re: Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

#22

Post by giardini »

lma22 wrote: post #16
giardini wrote: post #13

Good article! Answer: not very scared! I'm surprised to hear people hyperventilating in fear while speaking of returning to the gym, school, or work. The press has a lot of fools whipped up into a frenzy with this virus. Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population. And it kills so rarely! Over a period of 4 weeks I have periodically and anecdotally polled all friends b…

>Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population. There's entire nations on lock down to stop the spread. Without such an order, you'd have much more than "very few cases". You said it, COVID-19 is "very contagious". >And it kills so rarely! If it spreads, there's less medical equipment, space, and personnel to help fight. This will increase the death rate. You can look at…

The point of my post was precisely what I said in the first line of that post:

"Good article! Answer: not very scared!"

To elaborate: people are panicking unduly and they need to quit being scared, they need to calm down, they need to relax and go about their day w/o being on edge every minute. I'm not saying that people should not take precautions: I'm saying that, once you take precautions, there isn't much else one can do that will make one safer than to relax and enjoy the ride as best one can. So, for example, I read, exercise, eat right and live a somewhat normal life.

The point of my last statement was emphasis: I was emphasizing how uncommon Covid-19 is and, in particular, how rare Covid-19 deaths are.

The topic or thought of death is what seems to trigger panic in most people about Covid-19. Mention of the reality of Covid-19 is like waving a magic amulet: all I need do is utter "A Covid-19 death..." in a meeting and half the participants appear to void their bowels and the other half begin to make attempts to exit the room. Everybody needs to calm down and focus.

Re: Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

#23

Post by pmorici »

lma22 wrote: post #17
pmorici wrote: post #11

I really dislike the way the discussion around this has been framed. It seems to have centered around two polar extremes. On on end you have the idea that we should stay in "lockdown" until there is a cure or vaccine. On the other end you've got the "it's just the flu" crowd who doesn't want any public life restrictions while also nay saying zero cost things like masks that greatly reduce risk. Neither of those posit…

>. Where are the reasonable leaders that recognize that it isn't practical to to have a "lockdown" waiting for a vaccine that is going to take a year in the most optimistic case while at the same time recognizing that promoting small inexpensive behavior changes that keep this in check and reduce risk while that plays out is the way to prevent the need for more draconian measures. They're all over. Most US states are…

Very much felt like a lot of them got browbeat into it or those that wanted to down played the need for continued caution.

Re: Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

#24

Post by jdkee »

cybwraith wrote: post #12

Its understandable since this is BBC, but it also ignores the dramatic financial impact being hospitalized for COVID19 can have on the average family in the US. It could be 0.0001% fatality regardless of demographic, and people in the US should still be very cautious if the hospitalization rate stays the same. How many can afford to miss 3 weeks of work while recovering, let alone the bills afterwards or long-term he…

This is spot on. The fact that the U.S. does not have A single payer system and an estimated 600,000 annual medical bankruptcies is grounds for a total revamp. That and the fact that the U.S. spends twice as much per patient with no better outcomes than countries with socialized medicine.

Re: Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

#25

Post by WalterGR »

giardini wrote: post #22
lma22 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population. There's entire nations on lock down to stop the spread. Without such an order, you'd have much more than "very few cases". You said it, COVID-19 is "very contagious". >And it kills so rarely! If it spreads, there's less medical equipment, space, and personnel to help fight. This will increase the death rate. You can look at…

The point of my post was precisely what I said in the first line of that post: "Good article! Answer: not very scared!" To elaborate: people are panicking unduly and they need to quit being scared, they need to calm down, they need to relax and go about their day w/o being on edge every minute. I'm not saying that people should not take precautions: I'm saying that, once you take precautions, there isn't much else on…

I was emphasizing how uncommon Covid-19 is and, in particular, how rare Covid-19 deaths are.

At one choir practice, one person spread COVID-19 to 52 people, two of whom died. During dinner at a restaurant, one person infected four people sitting at the same table, and five people sitting at other tables.

You think because COVID-19 is rare right now that we should go back to work and the 2-hour meetings in conference rooms? Working back to back with someone in a cubicle? Just... going to a restaurant and eating?

COVID-19 in the US is rare because of the lockdowns. Deaths are rare because COVID-19 infections are rare because of the lockdowns.

(For some definition of rare.)

Re: Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

#26

Post by lma22 »

giardini wrote: post #22
lma22 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Granted it is very contagious, but there are still very few cases relative to the population. There's entire nations on lock down to stop the spread. Without such an order, you'd have much more than "very few cases". You said it, COVID-19 is "very contagious". >And it kills so rarely! If it spreads, there's less medical equipment, space, and personnel to help fight. This will increase the death rate. You can look at…

The point of my post was precisely what I said in the first line of that post: "Good article! Answer: not very scared!" To elaborate: people are panicking unduly and they need to quit being scared, they need to calm down, they need to relax and go about their day w/o being on edge every minute. I'm not saying that people should not take precautions: I'm saying that, once you take precautions, there isn't much else on…

You have no point.

Entire nations are on forced quarantine. That is slowing the spread (and deaths) of COVID-19 significantly. Without the quarantine, hospitals will be filled, leaving many who would otherwise live (with treatment) to die.

There are hundreds of thousands of at-risk individuals where COVID-19 is a deadly threat. No amount of "chilling out" or "exercise" will make that not true. To this, quarantine _is_ the precaution you speak about.

US states that have started to re-open are seeing surges in infection rates. Browse Google News to learn more.

Please do the bare minimum to be educated before throwing about your childish ramblings that can lead to deaths.

Re: Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

#27

Post by pmorici »

ghthor wrote: post #19
pmorici wrote: post #11

I really dislike the way the discussion around this has been framed. It seems to have centered around two polar extremes. On on end you have the idea that we should stay in "lockdown" until there is a cure or vaccine. On the other end you've got the "it's just the flu" crowd who doesn't want any public life restrictions while also nay saying zero cost things like masks that greatly reduce risk. Neither of those posit…

Masks are not zero cost, they are emotionally and physically taxing. I not wearing a mask if I'm not sick.

This comment fascinating because it sounds like something that would come from someone who is a weak snowflake but your linked profile indicates you are a fan of the president who goes out of his way to project strength in everything he does.

Re: Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

#28

Post by giardini »

WalterGR wrote: post #25
giardini wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of my post was precisely what I said in the first line of that post: "Good article! Answer: not very scared!" To elaborate: people are panicking unduly and they need to quit being scared, they need to calm down, they need to relax and go about their day w/o being on edge every minute. I'm not saying that people should not take precautions: I'm saying that, once you take precautions, there isn't much else on…

I was emphasizing how uncommon Covid-19 is and, in particular, how rare Covid-19 deaths are. At one choir practice, one person spread COVID-19 to 52 people, two of whom died. During dinner at a restaurant, one person infected four people sitting at the same table, and five people sitting at other tables . You think because COVID-19 is rare right now that we should go back to work and the 2-hour meetings in conference…

I already stressed that Covid-19 was very infectious, so why you're bringing this up is beyond me. But...

"At one choir practice, one person spread COVID-19 to 52 people, two of whom died."

There were 61 people present. The sick singers' average age was 69 [shades of "Nearer My God to Thee!"]. Of those, two died of Covid-19. 2 of 61 is pretty good odds, if you ask me, BUT...

how can we be certain that both deaths were due to presence at choir practice? Maybe they caught Covid from their grandchildren, a neighbor, or the postman, .... Similarly for the restaurant case, the affected could have caught the virus from someone other than the assumed.

Did the two deceased choir members have comorbidities (e.g., heart disease, diabetes, lung disease or asthma, AIDS, cancer treatment, an immune-suppressed system, etc.)?

We should avoid the 2-hour meetings b/c they are unproductive and boring.

Back to back in cubicles puts the actual effective recommended 1 metre social spacing into play. The 2-metre value was a judgment, a non-scientific value, tossed out by a British official:

https://sports.yahoo.com/coronavirus-social-distancing-lockd...

From that URL:

"Robert Dingwall, from the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), said the [2-metre] rule was 'conjured up out of nowhere'. The sociology professor at Nottingham Trent University said scientific evidence supports a one-metre gap, but the two-metre advice was a 'rule of thumb'.

Laura Ingraham may indeed have been correct when she claimed during her May 4 Fox News broadcast:

"Although, intuitively, I think it probably seemed like social distancing would be necessary, there was no real scientific basis for believing that since it had never been studied,"

Covid-19 is rare and will remain rare. The lock-downs reduce spread but destroy the economy, which also kills people.

It remains to be seen whether the "cure" of lock-downs is any better than the disease of Covid-19. It is almost certainly not less expensive.

Re: Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

#29

Post by giardini »

lma22 wrote: post #26
giardini wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of my post was precisely what I said in the first line of that post: "Good article! Answer: not very scared!" To elaborate: people are panicking unduly and they need to quit being scared, they need to calm down, they need to relax and go about their day w/o being on edge every minute. I'm not saying that people should not take precautions: I'm saying that, once you take precautions, there isn't much else on…

You have no point. Entire nations are on forced quarantine. That is slowing the spread (and deaths) of COVID-19 significantly. Without the quarantine, hospitals will be filled, leaving many who would otherwise live (with treatment) to die. There are hundreds of thousands of at-risk individuals where COVID-19 is a deadly threat. No amount of "chilling out" or "exercise" will make that not true. To this, quarantine _is…

With a few exceptions, hospitals in the USA were never filled and their ICUs were never filled. We built extra facilities that are now being dismantled:

"Houston Looking at Dismantling $17M Temp Hospital That Didn't See a Single Patient":

https://www.westernjournal.com/houston-looking-dismantling-1...

Meanwhile patients who should have gone to the hospital for conditions other than Covid-19 are sitting at home dying instead. The hospitals are mostly empty and are losing money b/c of Covid-19 panic.

Quarantine is primarily for the susceptible or the sick. To extend quarantine to everyone has proven too costly IMO.

Re-opening states are seing increases, NOT surges.

"Please do bare minimum to be educated before throwing about your childish ramblings that can lead to death."

Please complete education in English language before posting to most honorable ycombinator website using childish Eastern-language-style grammar that can lead to boredom by most respected readers!8-))

Re: Coronavirus: How scared should we be?

#30

Post by dionian »

lma22 wrote: post #26
giardini wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of my post was precisely what I said in the first line of that post: "Good article! Answer: not very scared!" To elaborate: people are panicking unduly and they need to quit being scared, they need to calm down, they need to relax and go about their day w/o being on edge every minute. I'm not saying that people should not take precautions: I'm saying that, once you take precautions, there isn't much else on…

You have no point. Entire nations are on forced quarantine. That is slowing the spread (and deaths) of COVID-19 significantly. Without the quarantine, hospitals will be filled, leaving many who would otherwise live (with treatment) to die. There are hundreds of thousands of at-risk individuals where COVID-19 is a deadly threat. No amount of "chilling out" or "exercise" will make that not true. To this, quarantine _is…

if the lockdowns were needed to stop the spread, then we would have seen the states that opened up 2-3 weeks ago having a dramatic increase in hospitalizations right now.

but that has not happened

also when the lockdowns started we were not sure about the details of the disease, now we have a relatively better understanding

Post reply on HN