151–160 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anecdotally, I feel like stress has gone way up for most people, not down. Not sure it's that's true or not on the larger scale, but it definitely seems true for me and most of the people I know.
Interesting. For me, it's involved a sharp decrease in stress, though that's overlapped with quitting my job and having a substantial financial cushion.
Dying at home, many of them. Excess mortality is way up, and it’s not all COVID-19: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/patients-with-heart-at... > The possibility that patients may be suffering — and even dying — at home rather than going to a hospital led the American College of Cardiology to launch a “Cardiosmart” campaign last week, attempting to reassure a wary population and encourage those with symptoms to c…
Where's the source of "excess mortality is way up"? I didn't see it in the article, though it does suggest there may be fewer heart attacks and strokes because of "a decrease in air pollution and fewer high-fat restaurant meals".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Opening things back up prematurely, without sufficient testing, is just going to get people killed. Yep, some people will die. That's unavoidable. Tens of millions die every year. Hundreds of millions will die per year in a few decades. That's life. If you are at-risk, you should continue to avoid contact with others. But there's currently no cure for covid-19 other than your own immune system. The sooner the disea…
No, it's entirely avoidable. I'm referring to unnecessary deaths from COVID-19, which, as we've seen here in California, and the Bay Area specifically, have not hit numbers suggested by initial models because we implemented shelter in place. I don't see anything more to your argument than what the woman standing with a sign saying "I want a haircut" is saying. Your attitude is dangerous. People will die unnecessarily…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bold of you to assume that a disease can just run its course and then end. Not that bold, since it is how most diseases/viruses work (with a few exceptions like HIV, and there's no reason to assume covid-19 is an exception) > Would you say the same thing about the Chickenpox Yes, chickenpox is one-and-done. Once you've had it, you (basically) can't get it again. > Are you willing to bet on a far deadlier second wav…
Okay, I guess I have to explain some things here. > Not that bold, since it is how most diseases/viruses work (with a few exceptions like HIV, and there's no reason to assume covid-19 is an exception) This is objectively wrong and I'll lead into why in the next point. > Yes, chickenpox is one-and-done. Once you've had it, you (basically) can't get it again. Chickenpox is not one-and-done. If you catch chickenpox, the…
The boils covering your entire body is one and done. Shingles is far less severe by comparison (my sister had it in high school and it was just a painful rash on her side that went away after a few weeks- and yes, it was definitely confirmed to be zoster despite her young age) and only reactivates in a small percentage of people who had chickenpox. Shingles kills basically no one compared to chickenpox.
> The danger of letting the coronavirus run rampant is severely understated by our complete inability to control it right now.
There's tons of evidence suggesting the mortality rate is way over-estimated right now and the amount of total cases is way higher than the number of confirmed cases due to people getting it and showing very few, if no, symptoms. This is nothing like the black plague. Hardly anyone is dying, even in places without shelter in place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should the media have some of the blame for these deaths by scaring people? Cherry picking young corona deaths, up playing tenuous studies saying corona causes diabetes and strokes, replaying stock footage of overloaded hospitals. If they gave people accurate statistics they could make an informed decision whether they want to go to a hospital.
Wow, you just jumped from an unexplained drop of ER vists straight to blaming the media for scaring people. More than 70k have died in the US so far - are we also going to blame the media for not scaring people early enough, or is that too inconvenient?
Of course, people hesitate to go to the doctor. But I see a second factor: Maybe it’s because of a slowing down in many regards. Hence, less stress, and less heart attacks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you have a better plan than what a group of public health experts have come up with? As far as I can tell, public health experts (and basically all medical experts) are in over their heads on this one. It's like 1970s computer scientists issuing guidance on a stuxnet-esque infection. Sure, they are the experts in that they know more about computer science than other people, but they also have no experience with…
And, what knowledge and/or credentials do you have to base the conclusion that "public health experts (and basically all medical experts) are in over their heads" on? Do you know what contained the outbreak in China, South Korea, and other countries?
Nobody alive on earth right now has ever experienced anything like this before at this scale. So by definition, there are no "veterans", there is no one with any experience whatsoever, just people who did case studies of past pandemics when air travel didn't exist and people that ran some simulations. Inexperienced people, no matter how expert they are, are terrible at predicting the future (re: the last 20 years of climate change expertise). "Oops, the model was wrong again, but we learned more for next time!"
> Do you know what contained the outbreak in China
How do we know it's contained? China kicked out all western journalists and nobody can audit any of their numbers. China is not exactly a clean/sanitary place, I wouldn't put it past CCP to simply cover it up to save face. Or maybe they realized it's not really as bad as it seems and they just let it run rampant.
How is Japan faring so well despite not sheltering in place and not testing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most interventions are for something that's not going to kill you right away, so I would guess that seeking intervention for a medical problem I'm having would increase my odds of dying right now (due to a mistake, or exposure to other wick people) while increasing my long term odds. I would not expect an increase in mortality when non-emergency doctors go on strike. And I hope to someday live in a world where medica…
There is also another possibility. If you kill of the weak, the remaining strong will show better health outcomes. And if you are a drug company, you can tout that as proof of the success of the treatment. And I suspect that is exactly what is happening with some of these medical treatments. They take out the weakest patients (with for example chemo therapy) and the remaining stronger ones will do better. But really…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't mean "stop sheltering in place," unless cases of COVID-19 have peaked. In order to tell whether they've peaked, you need testing in place, as well. Even if they have peaked, it could mean "relax some of the restrictions, but not fully end SIP, while monitoring cases." Opening things back up prematurely, without sufficient testing, is just going to get people killed.
Why do cases matter? It should be the death rate that peaks, and that's measurable without testing. In fact it seems to be over-attributed since many deaths are now being classified to Covid even if there are many other factors.
Citation?
> "They still want patients to avoid hospitals yet not hesitate to go if there are signs of an emergency"