- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Diamond Princess Final numbers:3711 passengers,712 positive ,7 deaths
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:27 am to moneyg
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:27 am to moneyg
quote:
Now you are changing your statement.
What on earth are you talking about?
My position is that the cruise ship model is useful because there is a high number of people within 3-6 feet of each other and touching surfaces.
If there is some other significance (circulating air carrying the virus) I'm not qualified to weigh in on that and based on what I've read it seems like the prior issues (proximity of people, surfaces) would be the bigger problems.
If that's true (proximity/surfaces) then there are plenty of areas in cities where this occurs and the cruise ship example would seemingly be useful in setting expectations/countermeasures.
1
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:27 am to Pettifogger
quote:
How does a flu present in larger numbers for a longer period with higher infected rates provide a valid comparison?
Because the entire point you're taking issue with (and misquoting me on, btw) is my belief that this will, in the end, be comparable to the common flu?
This post was edited on 3/16/20 at 10:30 am
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:27 am to moneyg
quote:
But, considering it as a possible limit is meaningful.
Then it's also meaningful to consider it as a possible reality.
OP completely ignored the data that do not support his position and many of you seem willing to do the same.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:28 am to RD Dawg
But, but, but the libs and the media told me the apocalypse was coming
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:30 am to Apache
quote:
Really?
Considering cruise ships recirculate air from cabin to cabin....
Yes
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:30 am to BoarEd
quote:
Because the entire point you're taking issue with (and misquoting me on, btw) is my belief that this will, in the end, be comparable to the common flu?
quote:
we will discover it was no more deadly or dangerous than the common flu
I interpret the above as referring to mortality rate. If you meant some combination of spread and mortality, and/or gross deaths instead of mortality (which is what I think most would think by "deadly") then I obviously retract anything based on that assumption.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:36 am to Pettifogger
1. It's not as infectious as the common flu, even in a case where people are "stacked on top of each other" in a density "20x higher than any city on earth.
2. Because of #1, we can safely assume that the final mortality rate will be far below the 1% shown in the cruise ship cases.
3. The nationwide stats on the rate of spread of this thing bear out #1 and prove #2.
This thing is being over hyped. It's just that simple.
No children on this cruise ship tested positive. Yet we are closing down schools. This makes no sense.
People are going to say that they are doing this to prevent the spread of this to other people. But why? As has already been shown, this thing isn't as infectious as the common flu.
Gross over hyping. Totally unwarranted. Manufactured panic.
2. Because of #1, we can safely assume that the final mortality rate will be far below the 1% shown in the cruise ship cases.
3. The nationwide stats on the rate of spread of this thing bear out #1 and prove #2.
This thing is being over hyped. It's just that simple.
No children on this cruise ship tested positive. Yet we are closing down schools. This makes no sense.
People are going to say that they are doing this to prevent the spread of this to other people. But why? As has already been shown, this thing isn't as infectious as the common flu.
Gross over hyping. Totally unwarranted. Manufactured panic.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:36 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Now you are changing your statement.
What on earth are you talking about?
You compared the cruise ships statistics to being akin to a densely populated city. You later tried to change your statement to comparing a cruise ship to a densely populated place within a city.
quote:
My position is that the cruise ship model is useful because there is a high number of people within 3-6 feet of each other and touching surfaces.
It's not meaningful on the macro level...especially within the United States. You certainly were insinuating it was earlier in this thread.
quote:
If that's true (proximity/surfaces) then there are plenty of areas in cities where this occurs and the cruise ship example would seemingly be useful in setting expectations/countermeasures.
The OPs point wasn't about this...and very few if any argue that places where people are in very close proximity are more "dangerous".
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:38 am to loogaroo
quote:
So why don't we just quarantine the vulnerable 15% and let the the other 85% keep the country going?
Because that's virtually impossible to do. That's almost 50 million people you want quarantine.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:39 am to Argonaut
quote:
Then it's also meaningful to consider it as a possible reality.
Not really unless you dismiss the underlying assumptions about proximity, age, and how that relates to transmission of the virus.
quote:
OP completely ignored the data that do not support his position and many of you seem willing to do the same.
If you want to make the case that the ship stats ARE representative of what we can expect to see, go ahead. I think that's absurd.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:42 am to moneyg
quote:
Not really unless you dismiss the underlying assumptions about proximity, age, and how that relates to transmission of the virus.
Well, you're dismissing the preventative measures taken during the outbreak on the ship. So are others.
quote:
If you want to make the case that the ship stats ARE representative of what we can expect to see, go ahead. I think that's absurd.
I haven't even come close to suggesting that. My point from the start has been that this isn't representative of anything except for what happened on the Diamond Princess.
OP, and you apparently, want to point to data that support your point and ignore those that don't.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:43 am to RD Dawg
Also from the article:
I dont necessarily disagree with mortity rate, but mortality rates are not fixed. The .6 number is with treatment.
Second, the 19% transmission rate occurred during quarantine, over a period of a handful of days. If we decided to just let this thing run its course, the exposure period wouldn't be days, it would be years. You can't assume that the 80% who disnt catch it on the ship will never catch it.
quote:
These ratios depend on available health care and public health measures, Russell cautions. And there are still uncertainties in the data, he notes. For example, some patients initially counted as asymptomatic may later develop symptoms, or even die. So the true fatality rate may be somewhat higher, “0.6 or 0.7 [percent], but it’s still a good ratio.”
I dont necessarily disagree with mortity rate, but mortality rates are not fixed. The .6 number is with treatment.
Second, the 19% transmission rate occurred during quarantine, over a period of a handful of days. If we decided to just let this thing run its course, the exposure period wouldn't be days, it would be years. You can't assume that the 80% who disnt catch it on the ship will never catch it.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:47 am to Pettifogger
quote:
The study also doesn't appear to account for the close and immediate attention the cruisers got. On the plus side, as OP indicates, there probably weren't a bunch of missed cases. However, they were likely caught fairly early and treated in an environment where they could get a ton of attention the rest of us won't have in the coming weeks.
So these cruisers are the only people with great access to healthcare and a perfect environment to be treated? The mental gymnastics some of yall are doing to make you feel better about your panic is crazy.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 10:48 am to moneyg
quote:
You compared the cruise ships statistics to being akin to a densely populated city. You later tried to change your statement to comparing a cruise ship to a densely populated place within a city.
This shite is bizarre.
Here is what I said
quote:
t does reflect the close proximity of people eating and drinking and walking around - more akin to a crowded city.
This was in response to someone else raising the city question. My position was premised on the idea it was proximity, rather than viral load passing through circulated air, that likely spread the disease on the ship. Hence, that can be replicated in cities in a way that circulated air would not be, for the most part.
I didn't change my position or shift goalposts or whatever you're talking about. Get a grip.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 11:23 am to Pettifogger
quote:
58 year olds run a ton of the world's largest companies, are community leaders, politicians, church leaders, etc.
Not great math there buddy.
If the average age is 58, there are a lot of really old people pulling the average up.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 11:24 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Not great math there buddy.
If the average age is 58, there are a lot of really old people pulling the average up.
Goodness read my post please
Posted on 3/16/20 at 11:33 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Goodness read my post please
Your post said:
quote:
58 year olds run a ton of the world's largest companies, are community leaders, politicians, church leaders, etc.
Do you really think the post you were replying to was suggesting that 58 year olds aren't important people?
The post was suggesting that, given that the average age was 58, it wasn't representative of the general population. This is what emotional thinking does to people.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 11:45 am to Tiguar
quote:
Virus is just another example of just how stupid the average American is and no one understands percentages. 0.5% mortality is 50x more deaths than the flu
I'm no math major but 0.5% compared to 0.1% is 5x more deaths than the flu, not 50. Still much worse, but it might be lower than that; there's no way to tell how many were/are actually coronavirus positive as many have either no or minor symptoms and might not have been tested...so there's no way to accurately calculate the mortality rate at present...
This post was edited on 3/16/20 at 11:50 am
Posted on 3/16/20 at 11:51 am to Argonaut
quote:
A cruise ship is a perfect model for worse case scenario.
quote:That's what I'd like to know as well. There's no way a cruise ship had the medical capabilities to test 3,711 passengers, treat 712 positive cases (if they had symptoms), and deal with 7 deaths on board the ship.
How did the cruise ship handle the outbreak?
The average cruise ship has a doctor or 2 on board and a couple of RN's with a domiciliary to treat patients. They do not have the man power or facilities to test & treat that many people.
Posted on 3/16/20 at 11:59 am to Oizers
quote:
If you apply those rates to cities, would it overwhelm the healthcare system?
The flu overwhelms hospitals every year. No beds, long waiting periods, patients on gurneys in the hallways. I expect you to support these same draconian measures this fall to halt the spread of flu which kills 40,000 a yea.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News