I like COVID 19

[Burkey]

I don't get why you assume people who own guns have a first instinct of wanting to break the law and shoot someone. Your vision of reality seems really warped to me.

Guns are good for hunting yes, but they are also good for protecting the populace from an over-reaching government.



No, some cities still need to be locked down, but most of the country does not.

I think it's disgusting to say that anyone who advocates for freedom has "blood on their hands" because someone else died from an illness. I'm not saying old people with lung conditions should be forced to contract a disease. I'm advocating for freedom for people to do what they want. And people aren't stupid. At least most aren't. If they are 80 something years old and at risk for dying from Covid, they will probably take precautions. And if they don't want to, I think that should be their choice.



Your graphs are all about people who TESTED positive. I believe many many more people have already had this than those few famous people and older people who got really sick from it. Most younger and healthy people have minor or no symptoms. There have been several studies of tested individuals where they were saying that 80X more people have had it than originally thought. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 400X in some areas. The genie is out of the bottle. There's no putting it back in.

It's like trying to wish away the flu or common cold. Too many people have had these viruses for them to ever be contained.

The government is printing money and giving it away. That is not a fiscally sound or sustainable way to do things. We need to end it as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately, beliefs and opinions don’t form a compelling (or otherwise) argument when compared to actual data and the facts that can be deduced from it.
Factually, the USA has 847,000 CONFIRMED cases. Any guesses outside of the confirmed infection numbers are just that, guesses.

How can we possibly know how many people are asymptomatic if they haven’t been tested?
If they’ve been tested, they’re on the list. There isn’t a list for “asymptomatic people who haven’t been tested (confirmed) but have definitely carried the virus.”
You’ve either tested positive or you haven’t.

We can say for sure that AT LEAST 0.2-0.3% of the population of the US have been confirmed with the virus.

Sponsored

 

[rick81721]

Unfortunately, beliefs and opinions don’t form a compelling (or otherwise) argument when compared to actual data and the facts that can be deduced from it.
Factually, the USA has 847,000 CONFIRMED cases. Any guesses outside of the confirmed infection numbers are just that, guesses.

How can we possibly know how many people are asymptomatic if they haven’t been tested?
If they’ve been tested, they’re on the list. There isn’t a list for “asymptomatic people who haven’t been tested (confirmed) but have definitely carried the virus.”
You’ve either tested positive or you haven’t.

We can say for sure that AT LEAST 0.2-0.3% of the population of the US have been confirmed with the virus.

There is enough data to say with certainty that some percentage of the total number we "know" via positive virus testing had the disease with little or no symptoms. Which means it is a certainty that there were more people in the US infected than 847,000. The only question is how many more. Antibody testing to date suggests it could be anywhere from 15% more (847,000 + 127,000) to 50x more (847,000 + 42,350,000). We will see results of the NYS n=3000 and NIH n=10,000 studies in a week or so.

 

[Burkey]

There is enough data to say with certainty that some percentage of the total number we "know" via positive virus testing had the disease with little or no symptoms. Which means it is a certainty that there were more people in the US infected than 847,000. The only question is how many more. Antibody testing to date suggests it could be anywhere from 15% more (847,000 + 127,000) to 50x more (847,000 + 42,350,000). We will see results of the NYS n=3000 and NIH n=10,000 studies in a week or so.

Ok, so how do you KNOW someone had the virus if they haven’t been tested?

 

[rick81721]

Ok, so how do you KNOW someone had the virus if they haven’t been tested?

Serology testing for antibodies. You can't have antibodies for it if you weren't infected

 

[Gregs24]

I don't get why you assume people who own guns have a first instinct of wanting to break the law and shoot someone. Your vision of reality seems really warped to me.

Guns are good for hunting yes, but they are also good for protecting the populace from an over-reaching government.

.

Can you explain why you need a gun if you are not going to shoot anybody? If you are not going to shoot anybody save your money and don't buy the gun. It is like buying a set of golf clubs but not playing golf - save your money for something worthwhile.

As regards protecting yourself from an over-reaching government. We have democracy in the UK (and I thought you had it in the US) which means the government represent the views of the majority of the people, which then form the basis and legitimacy for the rule of law. Fighting those democratic, legitimate rules with guns and force is called an insurgency which has no democratic legitimacy. That one sentence demonstrates that actually freedoms, civil rights and democracy of others don't apply to you if you don't like them or they don't fit with your interpretation, which is not how civilised society works. Your comment is also technically inciting armed resistance to the rule of law in the US which I believe may get you in trouble one day.

 

[Gregs24]

Ok, so how do you KNOW someone had the virus if they haven’t been tested?

Serology testing for antibodies. You can't have antibodies for it if you weren't infected

And there lies our current problem. We do not currently have sufficient volume of data for antibody testing to be able to establish just what this asymptomatic percentage is. Until we do it is just educated guessing at best. Going back a few pages I posted about the Diamond Princess cruise ship which provided useful early closed population data for the virus. This was a very skewed population as you might expect for a cruise ship, but there were a significant number of asymptomatic cases that were confirmed positive on PCR test at the time.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00885-w

 

[Gregs24]

I think it's disgusting to say that anyone who advocates for freedom has "blood on their hands" because someone else died from an illness. I'm not saying old people with lung conditions should be forced to contract a disease. I'm advocating for freedom for people to do what they want. And people aren't stupid. At least most aren't. If they are 80 something years old and at risk for dying from Covid, they will probably take precautions. And if they don't want to, I think that should be their choice.
.

But, I was asking what you would do, and if lots of people died because of your policies then you would be accused of having blood on your hands by people like you !

Is an asymptomatic carrier shedding virus in a position to make an informed decision about contact with other people ? Stupidity isn't the issue (clearly if a symptomatic person goes around coughing on everybody that is crazy) lack of information is. Very old high risk people are frequently dependent on younger people for social support and help with basic needs. Those young people that you advocate should be allowed to live a normal interactive life and risk then passing COVID on unwittingly from their many social interactions.

Those people making their own decisions about precautions (as in primarily the freedom to not take precautions) are more likely to get the disease and then require hospitalisation. A lot is said about deaths, but for all the dead people there are hundreds of sick people that will spend weeks or months in hospital requiring expensive treatment and putting may healthcare workers at risk. They may not consider that dependency on others when making their decision about freedom for themselves. My son has a friend who is a nurse who is living in a caravan rather than going home at night in order to minimise the risk of her spreading the virus to her aged family members. Her freedoms are restricted because she is providing care for others that may not be considering her when insisting on their own freedom.

 

[rick81721]

Can you explain why you need a gun if you are not going to shoot anybody? If you are not going to shoot anybody save your money and don't buy the gun. It is like buying a set of golf clubs but not playing golf - save your money for something worthwhile.

People in the UK will never understand guns here - it's just part of the culture. I own several, mostly hunting shotguns and rifle, plus a handgun for target shooting.

 

[rick81721]

And there lies our current problem. We do not currently have sufficient volume of data for antibody testing to be able to establish just what this asymptomatic percentage is. Until we do it is just educated guessing at best. Going back a few pages I posted about the Diamond Princess cruise ship which provided useful early closed population data for the virus. This was a very skewed population as you might expect for a cruise ship, but there were a significant number of asymptomatic cases that were confirmed positive on PCR test at the time.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00885-w

We will know much more soon. These are the largest studies here to date:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2328

 

[Hack]

Can you explain why you need a gun if you are not going to shoot anybody? If you are not going to shoot anybody save your money and don't buy the gun. It is like buying a set of golf clubs but not playing golf - save your money for something worthwhile.

As regards protecting yourself from an over-reaching government. We have democracy in the UK (and I thought you had it in the US) which means the government represent the views of the majority of the people, which then form the basis and legitimacy for the rule of law. Fighting those democratic, legitimate rules with guns and force is called an insurgency which has no democratic legitimacy. That one sentence demonstrates that actually freedoms, civil rights and democracy of others don't apply to you if you don't like them or they don't fit with your interpretation, which is not how civilised society works. Your comment is also technically inciting armed resistance to the rule of law in the US which I believe may get you in trouble one day.

You should try target shooting. It's a lot of fun. Duck hunting, deer hunting, just collecting. Why own a car when a bus or bike or taxi can get you there? Answer: you like cars. Guns are cool just because they are intricate and well made pieces of machinery. I guess if you've never owned one you wouldn't know that.

Guns are also good for personal protection. The police don't prevent crimes, they just stop by and clean up after the crime is already committed. If you have a gun you can prevent a crime from being perpetrated against you.

But, I was asking what you would do, and if lots of people died because of your policies then you would be accused of having blood on your hands by people like you !

Is an asymptomatic carrier shedding virus in a position to make an informed decision about contact with other people ? Stupidity isn't the issue (clearly if a symptomatic person goes around coughing on everybody that is crazy) lack of information is. Very old high risk people are frequently dependent on younger people for social support and help with basic needs. Those young people that you advocate should be allowed to live a normal interactive life and risk then passing COVID on unwittingly from their many social interactions.

Those people making their own decisions about precautions (as in primarily the freedom to not take precautions) are more likely to get the disease and then require hospitalisation. A lot is said about deaths, but for all the dead people there are hundreds of sick people that will spend weeks or months in hospital requiring expensive treatment and putting may healthcare workers at risk. They may not consider that dependency on others when making their decision about freedom for themselves. My son has a friend who is a nurse who is living in a caravan rather than going home at night in order to minimise the risk of her spreading the virus to her aged family members. Her freedoms are restricted because she is providing care for others that may not be considering her when insisting on their own freedom.

I wouldn't accuse people of having blood on their hands for allowing freedom. Especially at this stage in the game. Everyone knows what they are risking.

I don't agree with arguments that everyone should be locked up because some people MIGHT die. If you think that argument makes sense you are basically arguing to lock up everyone forever. People have always died from illnesses. Millions of people die from illnesses. Lock up makes sense to prevent hospitals from being over-run. But it doesn't make sense to lock up people forever because somebody might die. Most hospitals in the country are empty and the nurses are furloughed, for God's sake.

Take your car away - you might have an accident and someone might die. Then you will have blood on your hands! How dumb of a thing to say!

 

[Gregs24]

We will know much more soon. These are the largest studies here to date:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v1

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/mediapubhpdetail.cfm?prid=2328

Similar trial of 20,000 people just starting in the UK. This does seem to show as suspected that a lot of asymptomatic cases are out there BUT (and it is a very big BUT) 5% or so of the population with antibodies is still very low and nowhere near the level needed for herd immunity to play a factor yet. Some suggestions from Sweden that as many as 30% in Stockholm may have antibodies, but this data is now subject to review.

The only sliver of good news is that maybe the Swedish approach of far more relaxed restrictions relying on common sense by the population at large and allowing faster spread may be possible in other countries. Far too early to say with any confidence though.

 

[Gregs24]

You should try target shooting. It's a lot of fun. Duck hunting, deer hunting, just collecting. Why own a car when a bus or bike or taxi can get you there? Answer: you like cars. Guns are cool just because they are intricate and well made pieces of machinery. I guess if you've never owned one you wouldn't know that.

Guns are also good for personal protection. The police don't prevent crimes, they just stop by and clean up after the crime is already committed. If you have a gun you can prevent a crime from being perpetrated against you.



I wouldn't accuse people of having blood on their hands for allowing freedom. Especially at this stage in the game. Everyone knows what they are risking.

I don't agree with arguments that everyone should be locked up because some people MIGHT die. If you think that argument makes sense you are basically arguing to lock up everyone forever. People have always died from illnesses. Millions of people die from illnesses. Lock up makes sense to prevent hospitals from being over-run. But it doesn't make sense to lock up people forever because somebody might die. Most hospitals in the country are empty and the nurses are furloughed, for God's sake.

Take your car away - you might have an accident and someone might die. Then you will have blood on your hands! How dumb of a thing to say!

So those protesters carrying guns were duck shooting were they ? No, they were using a gun as a threat and for bravado. There is never a reason for a protester to carry a gun.

You must live in a pretty crime ridden place, In 56 years I have never needed a gun for personal protection or to prevent a crime.

Your definition of freedom seems a very selfish one - freedom for you at the expense of others as per previous post. Freedom is a collective thing.

I don't think anybody in any country is planning on locking people up forever - that would be a bit radical to say the least.

There is no reason to take a car away to save lives, just drive it responsibly and the risk is very small. Drive it like a tool and the risk is higher. This is why we have laws so that those who are incapable of living by the democratically established rules in your country are denied their freedom. You can't just do your own thing without restraint or responsibility without consideration for others. A completely unconstrained world is anarchy. The reason you need a gun is people like you doing what they want at your expense - look in the mirror !

 

[rick81721]

Similar trial of 20,000 people just starting in the UK. This does seem to show as suspected that a lot of asymptomatic cases are out there BUT (and it is a very big BUT) 5% or so of the population with antibodies is still very low and nowhere near the level needed for herd immunity to play a factor yet. Some suggestions from Sweden that as many as 30% in Stockholm may have antibodies, but this data is now subject to review.

The only sliver of good news is that maybe the Swedish approach of far more relaxed restrictions relying on common sense by the population at large and allowing faster spread may be possible in other countries. Far too early to say with any confidence though.

Seems pretty clear by now that the Sweden approach did not blow up as many predicted. Good graph in this piece:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-...ockholm-could-see-herd-immunity-in-weeks.html

 

[Gregs24]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52394485

Trial starting today - these are the guys who developed the MERS Coronavirus vaccine

 

[rick81721]

NYS antibody results - suggests 14% infection rate state-wide, 22% in NYC

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loc...plan-to-fight-nursing-home-outbreaks/2386556/

Sponsored