- 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 12:03 pm to David_DJS
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:03 pm to David_DJS
quote:
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?
Sweden. Curve converged. All these other people are just plain wrong, which is what we spoke about on this forum 3-4 weeks ago.
- isolate the elder/sick i.e. nursery homes for an example
- everyone else live life
LINK
- Pandemic was a farce
- vents, vents, vents was a farce
- testing, testing, testing is a farce to a degree... meaning helpful so we don't infect nursing home situations
- social distancing is a farce
- lock downs are a farce unless you go into extreme lock downs for say 12-18 months, which would result in many people starving to death
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 12:05 pm
0
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:03 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:We would have enacted policy with the primary outcome of reducing deaths due to allowing the hospitals being overrun.
If hospitals getting overwhelmed led to fewer deaths, what do you think we would have done?
But, if the secondary output was a general reduction in deaths not related to whether or not the hospital was overrun, that is a secondary benefit of the action, not the primary purpose.
The other issue is, we are discussing a situation without the negative consequences of the actions being taken into account.
For example, preventing people from getting infected entirely in order to prevent hospital overload was the initial purpose of the action, but once the hospitals are stabilized and supplies are no longer in question, the concept of preventing all spread of the virus was just a secondary benefit.
We have the capability of managing the care of patient numbers without the worsened scenario of overburdening hospitals and increasing mortality rates.
Once the primary worry is managed and no longer a concern, we should not continue performing an action with significant negative consequences.
What about the tertiary negative effects of our actions?
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:03 pm to the808bass
quote:
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.
Maybe you didn’t, but I did.
Weren’t there reports out of Italy that their system was overloaded and they couldn’t properly treat everyone. That led to more deaths and more misery and the idea was to avoid that.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:04 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
actually italy is on one of the ones that actually locked down the hardest
Italy is also typically hit by the flu harder than the norm. It's an old, smoking, not terribly healthy country.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:04 pm to Tiguar
quote:
this is true but the overall point is we have greatly reduced the risk of becoming overwhelmed
Oh, I completely agree.
The argument is when to end the social restrictions as they currently stand.
Scruffy’s position is that the new model moves from the basis of overrunning hospitals to prevent deaths and that that was not the original intent.
My point is simply that it has always been about prevent deaths - not all deaths obviously - but gross figures of deaths. It was a tertiary effect but the ultimate reason. And that you can make all the same arguments that he and 808 are making while acknowledging this fact.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:04 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:IMO, no, we wouldn't have.
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?
The concern was a situation like Italy or Spain, not to prevent deaths in their entirety.
If we could manage the situation without overloading the medical system or the deaths would not have increased even with overloading the system, we wouldn't have enacted these policies.
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:05 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
That isn’t true.
Cases? Yes.
Deaths? No
i said approximately
here is the difference (within the context of this thread): when we know hospitals won't be overrun, we are supposed to restart society
deaths are still going to happen and we cannot stop that
hospitals being overrun was our primary concern and directly led to these policies
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:05 pm to the808bass
quote:
He’s a doctor. He’s got a grasp on the sitch.
Honestly, I don’t think anyone really does.
Starting at the top. Science is failing us and a lot of that is because it’s been corrupted by politics.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:08 pm to doubleb
quote:
Weren’t there reports out of Italy that their system was overloaded and they couldn’t properly treat everyone. That led to more deaths and more misery and the idea was to avoid that.
Yes. Tell me how Decorah, IA is being affected by the virus now? Not by the “lockdown,” the virus. How about Laramie, Wyoming?
Why can’t Suzie open her salon in Decorah? Why can’t Phil continue his home remodeling business in Laramie?
There’s no good reason.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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
If keeping hospitals viable and not over run, wasn’t going to lessen misery and death then why worry? It had to be about lessening suffering and death or it doesn’t matter.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:08 pm to David_DJS
quote:
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?
I think that is impossible to answer because herd immunity doesn’t develop equally across all regions. For instance, New Orleans probably is closer to herd immunity than Dallas right now.
I do think that is now the goal until a vaccine is developed. Hopefully the reports out of Germany about high percentages of asymptotic carriers is accurate.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:09 pm to doubleb
quote:
Science is failing us
Science doesn’t answer questions like this for us. It will always fail us.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:10 pm to doubleb
quote:If there was never the threat of hospitals being overrun, we would never have enacted these policies.
If keeping hospitals viable and not over run, wasn’t going to lessen misery and death then why worry?
I mean, we have had significant medical events in the past with 10s of thousands of deaths that have not resulted in hospitals being overrun, yet we never locked down like this.
Clearly, that was the primary purpose.
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:11 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yes. Tell me how Decorah, IA is being affected by the virus now? Not by the “lockdown,” the virus. How about Laramie, Wyoming?
Why can’t Suzie open her salon in Decorah? Why can’t Phil continue his home remodeling business in Laramie?
There’s no good reason.
in terms of policy this is the big fail and why a federal response is stupid (especially in hindsight)
hell, intrastate, it's stupid. there is no reason LC should be shut down right now b/c Nola is being hit hard
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:11 pm to David_DJS
sweden population density: 159th
italy: 51st
spain: 46th
united states: 79th
south korea: 13th
LINK
no 1 factor I mentioned is much more important than the other. south korea enacted aggressive, widespread testing and contact tracing very early and their population respected the threat. their outbreak was basically nothing when you consider how densely populated they are.
comparing sweden to us for this pandemic is as asinine as socialists comparing us to them as an example of socialized medicine
italy: 51st
spain: 46th
united states: 79th
south korea: 13th
LINK
no 1 factor I mentioned is much more important than the other. south korea enacted aggressive, widespread testing and contact tracing very early and their population respected the threat. their outbreak was basically nothing when you consider how densely populated they are.
comparing sweden to us for this pandemic is as asinine as socialists comparing us to them as an example of socialized medicine
This post was edited on 4/11/20 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:13 pm to Scruffy
quote:
What the frick?
Flattening the curve, spreading the cases over a longer period of time allows for better individual and better outcomes if the alternative was to do nothing, and let hospitals get over run so that people didn’t get proper care.
In my mind flattening the curve could and should lessen the misery, suffering and deaths if the initial forecast of 200K or more deaths was correct. We have reason to believe the initial forecasts made were bogus, but that doesn’t mean the strategy was wrong. The strategy could be good, and the danger overstated.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:14 pm to Scruffy
quote:
f we could manage the situation without overloading the medical system or the deaths would not have increased even with overloading the system, we wouldn't have enacted these policies.
Policies, as is, I agree.
I still believe we will see moderate social restrictions, though. For two reasons, first there is a layer of protection needed for most people because they do not understand the basic nature of viruses. Second, to prevent us from spiking back up to where we have to go on another lockdown.
I’m really hoping Louisiana begins this process at the end of April.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:15 pm to the808bass
quote:
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?
Maybe that’s why car deaths have been inching up lately.
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:15 pm to doubleb
i think it's pretty clear that the VAST majority of hospital systems would have handled this fine. even Nola
we shut down the country because of NYC
we shut down the country because of NYC
Posted on 4/11/20 at 12:15 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:Which is what everyone expects, but the politicians in the OP and the IHME are not pushing for moderate restrictions.
I still believe we will see moderate social restrictions, though
They are pushing for continued shutdown.
That is the biggest issue.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News