- 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 11:41 am to MusclesofBrussels
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:41 am to MusclesofBrussels
quote:
More than a few months of shutdowns was never a viable strategy.
Which is why shutdowns never made sense.
0
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:42 am to David_DJS
quote:.
And you're arguing intellectual honesty in this thread
What is dishonest about that statement?
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:44 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Why? What is the consequence of capsizing surge capacity?
you're arguing secondary effects when he's arguing primary effects
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:44 am to Antonio Moss
quote:Because you, IHME, and Inslee are attributing all potential Wuhan virus deaths in the future to being preventable which is moronic and dishonest.
What is dishonest about that statement?
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 11:46 am
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:46 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
What is dishonest about that statement?
I give you too much credit for intelligence to explain that to you. Seriously, if it's not obvious, go for a run, come back and read this thread over again.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:47 am to the808bass
quote:
Again, this is from the models themselves. They argue explicitly that social distancing is about staying under surge capacity ICU.
Then Why the concern with hospitals being overloaded if it doesn’t make a difference in patient care and eventual outcome?
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:48 am to Scruffy
quote:
That is exactly what I said.
That is not what you said.
quote:
What you are neglecting is that the graph posted is not pointing to "preventable deaths secondary to an overwhelmed medical system".
Correct, but that doesn’t change the intent of the original restrictions.
quote:
It is detailing "deaths that are preventable merely by avoiding social contact", which was never the purpose.
But clearly will be moving in that direction, right? At least as I am understanding it, it is not lockdowns but moderate social distancing restrictions.
quote:
Prior to the initiation of this it was understood that there would be deaths (I at least hope you understood that).
Of course. There was going to be some rate of mortality. The idea was to keep that rate as low as possible by keeping medical systems in tact.
quote:
It was all to prevent worsening the scenario by compounding it with unsustainable medical overrun.
Correct and the reason for that was to prevent an insanely number of high deaths that we saw in Italy and Spain.
So we enacted these restrictions to prevent deaths - not all deaths clearly - but prevent the death toll from spiraling out of control.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:48 am to Scruffy
quote:
The purposes of the fricking social distancing was not to prevent deaths.
It was to prevent overrun hospitals.
frick these people and all who agree with them.
Yep. Shows we are being willingly lied to.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
you're arguing secondary effects when he's arguing primary effects
I understand that but you can’t just exclude secondary effects.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:49 am to doubleb
It does. But the argument for social distancing was never about preventing any deaths (or even reducing deaths due to the virus). The infection rate of the population in the Imperial College paper was constant even with social distancing.
The argument was reducing deaths due to the system being overloaded.
The argument was reducing deaths due to the system being overloaded.
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 11:50 am
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:49 am to Scruffy
quote:
The purpose was to prevent overrunning hospitals so that what deaths there were were not compounded by them being overrun.
There were going to be deaths no matter what.
Your question is not the gotcha you think it is, and you should hopefully already know the answer to your question.
So you do not believe over run hospitals could impact quality of care, the treatment individuals receive, and their outcome?
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:50 am to Scruffy
quote:
Because you, IHME, and Inslee are attributing all potential Wuhan virus deaths in the future to being preventable which is moronic and dishonest.
I have never stated such.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:50 am to doubleb
He’s a doctor. He’s got a grasp on the sitch.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Well the the IMHE model is MODELED ON DEATHS and the hospitalizations and resources are variables based on that.
you're arguing secondary effects when he's arguing primary effects
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:51 am to Antonio Moss
well we're going to end up with approximately the same number of cases/deaths over time
the issue is what "over time" is defined as. 1 month? 2 months? 12 months? 24 months?
the primary focus of this policy is to stretch out the timeline to ensure hospitals remain viable. you are focusing on semantics and i'm not sure why
the issue is what "over time" is defined as. 1 month? 2 months? 12 months? 24 months?
the primary focus of this policy is to stretch out the timeline to ensure hospitals remain viable. you are focusing on semantics and i'm not sure why
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:51 am to Scruffy
quote:This is what we were told. But it seems to me that they’ve just positioned themselves(dems + epidemiologists data/recommendations) to be able to play both sides of this thing.
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.
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.
We’re well on our way to flattening this curve by doing what they said. And they asked us to do it to do just that, flatten it.
Like you said, our next step is to take the knowledge we have from this and start getting back to normal with a better understand of how to stay relatively safe.
But people will die from that. And Dems + our epidemiologist overlords will shite down our throats for it. They’re going to start pushing for even longer shutdowns(even though we did what they asked us to do). Longer shutdowns will frick us too.
We’re in a no win situation while they’re in a win/win situation. Which is why I’ve hated the plan this entire time because it was clear as day they were going to do this.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:51 am to Antonio Moss
quote:That does not appear to be the case.
But clearly will be moving in that direction, right? At least as I am understanding it, it is not lockdowns but moderate social distancing restrictions.
They seem to be arguing for continued stay at home orders, which many are calling "social distancing".
Why would they be so adamantly against Trump recommending opening up the economy if they are pushing for opening the economy some?
That makes no sense.
quote:Secondary to overrun hospitals.
So we enacted these restrictions to prevent deaths - not all deaths clearly - but prevent the death toll from spiraling out of control.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:52 am to bird35
quote:
We lose 39,000 people a year to automobile accidents.
40 years ago we lost 50,000 people a year to auto wrecks. We spent billions to improve car safety, tightened safety, and built safer highways. This is a flawed argument.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:52 am to doubleb
quote:What the frick?
So you do not believe over run hospitals could impact quality of care, the treatment individuals receive, and their outcome?
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:52 am to SlowFlowPro
Slow you're a lawyer -- like is this not in any way "illegal"? I'm going to admit I'm totally about to lose my shite and my mind over all of this. My husband just told my kid to not get sushi because it isn't smart right now??? I mean come on man.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News