- 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: IHME and Jay Inslee pushing talking points to extend shutdowns
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:32 am to Antonio Moss
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:32 am to Antonio Moss
"Preventable Deaths" is such a loaded term.
We lose 39,000 people a year to automobile accidents. If we lowered the speed limit to 20 MPH then we prevent 38,000 deaths, but in the meantime grind the economy to a halt.
May 4th back to work no matter how many deaths are "prevented."
We lose 39,000 people a year to automobile accidents. If we lowered the speed limit to 20 MPH then we prevent 38,000 deaths, but in the meantime grind the economy to a halt.
May 4th back to work no matter how many deaths are "prevented."
1
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:32 am to the808bass
quote:
They argue explicitly that social distancing is about staying under surge capacity ICU.
Correct.
Why? What is the consequence of capsizing surge capacity?
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:32 am to MusclesofBrussels
The purpose of the first shut down was to:
1. identify what, exactly, we are dealing with and prevent rampant spread during that time
2. increase testing capacity
3. increase supplies to prevent getting overwhelmed (drugs, PPE, etc)
the purpose of a second/extended shut down is to
1. flatten the curve
2. ???
a true curve flattening won't happen without a 6-12 month shut down. pandora is out of her box and we arent shutting down for 6-12 months. open back up and rip the bandaid off in the summer when we arent also dealing with flu and winter pneumonias
1. identify what, exactly, we are dealing with and prevent rampant spread during that time
2. increase testing capacity
3. increase supplies to prevent getting overwhelmed (drugs, PPE, etc)
the purpose of a second/extended shut down is to
1. flatten the curve
2. ???
a true curve flattening won't happen without a 6-12 month shut down. pandora is out of her box and we arent shutting down for 6-12 months. open back up and rip the bandaid off in the summer when we arent also dealing with flu and winter pneumonias
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:32 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
For this model, correct. But that is not really the point.
It is the point. Whether you want it to be or not. If we get a good idea of what an outbreak looks like versus health resources available, then you move on with life and death.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:32 am to Antonio Moss
quote:Oh my god.
What is the consequence of capsizing surge capacity?
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 11:33 am
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:33 am to Scruffy
quote:
The purpose was to prevent overrunning hospitals so that what deaths there were were not compounded by them being overrun.
Compounded meaning increased, right?
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:33 am to Antonio Moss
Lol. You’re a fig.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:34 am to Antonio Moss
quote:Are you retarded?
Compounded meaning increased, right?
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:35 am to Scruffy
Nah, he's just more intelligent than everyone else
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:35 am to MusclesofBrussels
quote:Clearly he isn’t because his apparent confusion in this situation is astounding.
Nah, he's just more intelligent than everyone else
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:35 am to MusclesofBrussels
Can someone help me understand something?
At some point, a single person(might have been a few at a time) came over here and infected one person and so on and so on. That has led us to the number of infected we have right now, whatever that real number is.
When we go back to normal, I’m going to take a wild guess and predict that we have more than one person out there with the virus(obviously).
With 360 million citizens, I highly doubt the majority of Americans have had the virus already. What’s stopping it from spreading and killing more and more people? What’s to stop it from getting back up to 2000 deaths per day?
For the stay at home plan to work, it seems obvious to me that we’d have to keep it going for 8+ months. Probably longer.
I just don’t get the plan and have never liked it.
At some point, a single person(might have been a few at a time) came over here and infected one person and so on and so on. That has led us to the number of infected we have right now, whatever that real number is.
When we go back to normal, I’m going to take a wild guess and predict that we have more than one person out there with the virus(obviously).
With 360 million citizens, I highly doubt the majority of Americans have had the virus already. What’s stopping it from spreading and killing more and more people? What’s to stop it from getting back up to 2000 deaths per day?
For the stay at home plan to work, it seems obvious to me that we’d have to keep it going for 8+ months. Probably longer.
I just don’t get the plan and have never liked it.
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 11:36 am
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:37 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
For the stay at home plan to work, it seems obvious to me that we’d have to keep it going for 8+ months. Probably longer.
It would have to be until a vaccine is developed, proven, manufactured and distributed. Probably 18-24 months of "social distancing" for it to matter.
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 11:38 am
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:37 am to Scruffy
No, just pointing the intellectual dishonesty in your post.
Clearly, the purpose of social distancing is to prevent overwhelming the medical system because that will lead to higher mortality rates, ie more preventable deaths. The exact scenarios that occurred in Italy and Spain.
You can make all the same arguments you are making - acceptable mortality rates, enhanced tracking, economic consequences outweighing medical consequences, etc. - without being intellectually dishonest.
Clearly, the purpose of social distancing is to prevent overwhelming the medical system because that will lead to higher mortality rates, ie more preventable deaths. The exact scenarios that occurred in Italy and Spain.
You can make all the same arguments you are making - acceptable mortality rates, enhanced tracking, economic consequences outweighing medical consequences, etc. - without being intellectually dishonest.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:37 am to Scruffy
quote:
The purposes of the fricking social distancing was not to prevent deaths.
It was to prevent overrun hospitals.
You are not exactly a big picture guy are you...
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:38 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:If the purpose of the plan was to fully prevent every single potential death, it would have to last for an insane amount of time.
For the stay at home plan to work, it seems obvious to me that we’d have to keep it going for 8+ months. Probably longer.
Months and months, which isn't possible.
The entire purpose of performing acts like "flattening the curve", like we have been, is to merely allow out medical system to maintain control and prevent having a situation where we become overrun, like in Italy and Spain.
It was never to prevent deaths.
It was to allow time to breathe prior to folding the infection into our societal structure.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:39 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
For the stay at home plan to work, it seems obvious to me that we’d have to keep it going for 8+ months. Probably longer.
Not necessarily. Enhanced tracking due to availability of antibody tests along moderate social restrictions in certain industries could hold serve until a vaccine is available.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:39 am to David_DJS
quote:
It would have to be until a vaccine is developed, proven, manufactured and distributed. Probably 18-24 months of "social distancing" for it to matter.
I think it's more likely contact tracing through our phones has been the plan behind the scenes for a while now. More than a few months of shutdowns was never a viable strategy.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:40 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Not necessarily. Enhanced tracking due to availability of antibody tests along moderate social restrictions in certain industries could hold serve until a vaccine is available.
And you're arguing intellectual honesty in this thread.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:40 am to Antonio Moss
quote:Intellectually dishonest?
You can make all the same arguments you are making - acceptable mortality rates, enhanced tracking, economic consequences outweighing medical consequences, etc. - without being intellectually dishonest.
quote:That is exactly what I said.
Clearly, the purpose of social distancing is to prevent overwhelming the medical system because that will lead to higher mortality rates, ie more preventable deaths.
What you are neglecting is that the graph posted is not pointing to "preventable deaths secondary to an overwhelmed medical system".
It is detailing "deaths that are preventable merely by avoiding social contact", which was never the purpose.
Prior to the initiation of this it was understood that there would be deaths (I at least hope you understood that).
It was all to prevent worsening the scenario by compounding it with unsustainable medical overrun.
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 11:42 am
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:40 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
What’s stopping it from spreading and killing more and more people? What’s to stop it from getting back up to 2000 deaths per day?
Nothing other than the history of viruses.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News