- 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 11:53 am to Antonio Moss
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:53 am to Antonio Moss
quote:Well, that is what they are arguing and what their graph is showing, so, if you aren't defending their stance, what are you defending?
I have never stated such.
They are pushing for longer shutdowns, not opening with restrictions.
1
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:53 am to the808bass
quote:
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.
These are conflicting points.
Obviously if you reduce the stress on the medical system such that you reduce the mortality of rate of the virus then you have reduced deaths by the virus.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:53 am to doubleb
quote:
We spent billions to improve car safety, tightened safety, and built safer highways. This is a flawed argument.
It’s not. We have CAFE standards that account for a few dozen thousand deaths according to the models every year. Are the models wrong?
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:53 am to doubleb
I think you misunderstand. The laughing emojis and dismissive attitudes towards the question are due to its absurdity, not due to any underlying mistruth in the implication.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well we're going to end up with approximately the same number of cases/deaths over time
That isn’t true.
Cases? Yes.
Deaths? No
That was entire point of the restrictions.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:55 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Well the the IMHE model is MODELED ON DEATHS
our policy isn't b/c it's being based on
quote:
hospitalizations and resources are variables based on that.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:55 am to Antonio Moss
quote:Again, primary vs secondary purpose.
These are conflicting points. Obviously if you reduce the stress on the medical system such that you reduce the mortality of rate of the virus then you have reduced deaths by the virus.
Again, the reason it was enacted was for the primary function with the secondary output.
The secondary effect was a benefit, not the purpose.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:55 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Obviously if you reduce the stress on the medical system such that you reduce the mortality of rate of the virus then you have reduced deaths by the virus.
You’re an obtuse jackanape.
The health system being overwhelmed for any reason will result in adverse outcomes. If there’s a 300 car pile up next to the hospital, there will be adverse outcomes due to an overload of the system. That’s not because of the car crashes, it’s because of the overload.
You know what everyone is saying. Drop the Socratic model. It’s unbecoming.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:But our policy is to prevent deaths; it’s one of the most important primary outcomes, more important than hospital resource use.
our policy isn't b/c it's being based on
If hospitals getting overwhelmed led to fewer deaths, what do you think we would have done?
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 11:57 am
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:56 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
I just don’t get the plan and have never liked it.
I believe the plan worked to some extent, but now we need to adjust for current conditions.
The entire country can’t be looked at as one. States have different problems. Cities have different problems. What is necesssry in NO
isn’t necessary in Little Rock. NYC isn’t the same as LA.
It’s a big job but each ares should have a different plan.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:57 am to Antonio Moss
Typed out a bunch of stuff.
Backspaced it.
frick off.
Backspaced it.
frick off.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:57 am to Scruffy
quote:
They are pushing for longer shutdowns, not opening with restrictions.
If you're all-in, what choice do they have...
1. admit it was a farce
2. extend indefinitely, until the fbi/doj get their act together... or revolution
Not very good choices, imo, should be fun to watch.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:58 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Obviously if you reduce the stress on the medical system such that you reduce the mortality of rate of the virus then you have reduced deaths by the virus.
this is true but the overall point is we have greatly reduced the risk of becoming overwhelmed
what you saw in spain and italy was the result of a few things:
1. dismissive "just the flu bro" attitude by the general public
2. lack of testing to actually identify people to tell them to stay home
3. lack of PPE to protect healthcare workers
4. population density
5. socialized medicine (supply scarcity rather than payment scarcity)
you saw a snowball effect because those factors all synergize to create a catastrophe
we are immune from 4/5 and delayed this shite long enough to mitigate 1-3.
we will not become italy or spain if we turned the spigot on tomorrow. now, I think we should probably stay chill for another week or so but it wouldn't be the end of the world if they flipped the switch tomorrow.
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:58 am to MusclesofBrussels
I didn’t need a graph to tell me liberals want to continue to spread fear and consolidate power.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 11:58 am to Scruffy
quote:
Again, primary vs secondary purpose.
Again, the reason it was enacted was for the primary function with the secondary output.
The secondary effect was a benefit, not the purpose.
There is no way that it is accurate.
You keep saying primary and secondary but it is more aptly described as cause and effect.
Look at it this way, if overwhelming a medical system would not have caused an increased mortality rate, would we have engaged in the social restrictions?
You cannot separate the two in the argument.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:00 pm to the808bass
Honest question (answer isn't clear to me) - isn't there a counterargument to social distancing that is retards the development of herd immunity, and could actually result in more people contracting the virus over a longer than necessary period of time? - or at least counterbalance some/a lot of the benefit of social distancing?
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:00 pm to David_DJS
Yes. That’s what Sweden is doing.
Reread your question. Not quite.
I don’t think it could add to the number getting the virus. But there’s certainly a counter argument to social distancing.
Reread your question. Not quite.
I don’t think it could add to the number getting the virus. But there’s certainly a counter argument to social distancing.
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:01 pm to Tiguar
quote:
1. dismissive "just the flu bro" attitude by the general public 2. lack of testing to actually identify people to tell them to stay home
1. doesn't seem to have any real bearing on Sweden, the curves all converge
2. actually italy is on one of the ones that actually locked down the hardest
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:02 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
they locked down the hardest very late and italians still ignored it
LINK
completely irrelevant to the point of the spike causing an overwhelmed system
LINK
quote:
1. doesn't seem to have any real bearing on Sweden, the curves all converge
completely irrelevant to the point of the spike causing an overwhelmed system
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:03 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
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.
And clearly the medical system has not been overwhelmed.
The only reason to socially distance is to protect yourself. Let that be a personal decision. The medical system is clearly underwhelmed. Let business open up progressively (as defined by the Task Force) and allow things to get back to normal. If there is evidence that the medical system will become overwhelmed then ramp up distancing measures.
This one size fits all approach is killing people. Decisions need to be discrete and unique to each locale.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News