Anyone who still thinks this is no big deal...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.

Would you get on a plane if there was a 2 percent chance it would crash? Shame on YOU.

PP here, yes, I would.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.


But if this is true for you in real life then I am sure Darwin will do his work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's get some perspective here. Let's take Italy with its 60,000 million population. They now have 4,825 dead. That's .01% of the population. Tragic yes, but it doesn't look as scary as saying 53,500 diagnosed and 4,825 dead.

In other words, even as it rages in Italy, only 54K of the entire population (rounded up) is infected out 60 MILLION people.

Sure. They are now on lockdown. Lockdown works.

Yet the headlines are still screaming. No. If you look at the clustering on the data posted and you consider that we saw the same in China, when 1/2 of Wuhan fled before the lockdown and 1/2 of Italy fled before the lockdown, it should be much much MUCH worse

The fact is, most cases are mild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.

Yes the death rate is low but a I have been hospitalized twice with pneumonia in the past - and I had no underlying conditions and was in my late 20s
the first time. It was very scary not being able to breathe and even with oxygen you still feel the strain. Then once out of the hospital the recovery is a long process. - well over 3 months to get back to a place of feeling somewhat like yourself. The exhaustion and then there was a years long effect of illness induced asthma . The second time around I had the pleasure of also getting illness induced arthritis which stuck around for about a year before being able to completely wean off the meds. I won’t even mention the amazing amount of follow up doctor visits needed. I was lucky my job was understanding.

So yes the death rate is thankfully low but severe cases can and do happen and the recovery from such an illness is a long road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.

Yes if 80% of the country gets and a 2% death rate..that’s only 5.232 million deaths. That is not even close to the numbers of deaths in WW2.

Are you reading what this is doing to the lungs of those who don't die?

I haven't read anything about that. If you have a good article, please link.

[Anonymous]

Based on the number of people out and about today, I’d say there are plenty of people who think it’s no big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not 2% of the population... *bangs head against wall*

Ok it's 2% of 40-70% of the population. Let's call it 50% of the population that will get infected.

That's 115,000,000 people. Thus 1,500,000 dead of the disease and 20,000,000 hospitalized, displacing all the other critical patients, who also die at a higher rate. It's on the order of magnitude of 2,000,000 deaths at a minimum if we don't slow it down.

Its more complicated than that.

The virus disproportionately kills elderly people with existing health problems. 650,000 Americans die of heart disease every year. There would be a big overlap between coronavirus deaths and heart disease deaths in a regular year as those are the demographics being killed off by the virus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^PS, I’m even getting on a couple of planes this week.

That's just idiotic.

Why is the world do you think this is funny or in anyway something to be done at this time?

To the PP traveling.. I am curious what you are doing and where you are going that is so important? Everything is shutting down for a reason...
get over yourself and stay home like everyone else so we won't be on quarantine for months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.

Yes if 80% of the country gets and a 2% death rate..that’s only 5.232 million deaths. That is not even close to the numbers of deaths in WW2.

That's more than the number of deaths in the US for WWII.

10 times the number of people who died in the US during WW2 (approx 500k).

This needs to be explained more to “common” folk.

The US deaths from WWII were mostly from people in their prime, both health and age to generate an income. . The deaths from this will mostly be the opposite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.

Would you get on a plane if there was a 2 percent chance it would crash? Shame on YOU.

PP here, yes, I would.

Omg if 2 or even 1 percent of flights in the US crashed, planes wound not fly anymore. That would be over 4K airplane crashes each day (of those landing and/or taking off in the US).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less than a 2 percent death rate. No need to overhype things. Shame on you.

Yes if 80% of the country gets and a 2% death rate..that’s only 5.232 million deaths. That is not even close to the numbers of deaths in WW2.

Are you reading what this is doing to the lungs of those who don't die?

I haven't read anything about that. If you have a good article, please link.

NP. There are many articles about this. Here is one: https://nypost.com/2020/03/17/coronavirus-doctor-says-lung-scans-for-young-patients-were-nothing-short-of-terrifying/

[Anonymous]

I read the article at:
https://www.amgreatness.com/2020/03/19/dangerous-curves/

I don’t buy the “fueled by media” bashing – people in the media are for the most part statistics-and-data-analysis illiterate and have no way of evaluating the numbers throw at them – The thesis here though seems sounds and would explain the relative low number of deaths in China. The high numbers of deaths in Italy would reflect the state of their health care system and their demography (skewing older than most European countries).

On an anecdotal note – I was sick late December after hosting the kids (one of them was a bit “under the weather” with fever but no other symptoms) of a friend visiting from China. My symptoms reflect almost all the ones associated with the coronavirus (nausea and cramps to start, cough & temperature afterwards). It felt different from anything I had experienced before. I was OK in about 3 days and completely back in about 2 weeks.
I know that the plural of anecdote is not “data” but it is one that makes me at least understand her perspective on it and the data that she is presenting seem to support her hypothesis.

Dangerous? Yes -- sure.
Deadly: only for the very old and already sick -- 99% of the people who died were suffering from something else PRIOR to the virus..
Worth cancelling everything and destroying our economy over it?? No -- absolutely no.
and now, we are talking about 2 Trillions (With a T) of printed money...
A complete disaster for nothing...

[Anonymous]

I think people are vastly overestimating the health of average Americans and the strength of our healthcare system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people are vastly overestimating the health of average Americans and the strength of our healthcare system.

+1

I am also amazed at all the public health experts that haunt DCUM. But I'm equally astonished why they are posting on DCUM instead of working directly with their local governments to teach them why their assumptions and decision-making are so wrong and unnecessarily over-reactive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people are vastly overestimating the health of average Americans and the strength of our healthcare system.

+1 We have a lot of overweight and obese Americans or all ages. A lot of diabetics. And a lot of smokers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the article at:
https://www.amgreatness.com/2020/03/19/dangerous-curves/

I don’t buy the “fueled by media” bashing – people in the media are for the most part statistics-and-data-analysis illiterate and have no way of evaluating the numbers throw at them – The thesis here though seems sounds and would explain the relative low number of deaths in China. The high numbers of deaths in Italy would reflect the state of their health care system and their demography (skewing older than most European countries).

On an anecdotal note – I was sick late December after hosting the kids (one of them was a bit “under the weather” with fever but no other symptoms) of a friend visiting from China. My symptoms reflect almost all the ones associated with the coronavirus (nausea and cramps to start, cough & temperature afterwards). It felt different from anything I had experienced before. I was OK in about 3 days and completely back in about 2 weeks.
I know that the plural of anecdote is not “data” but it is one that makes me at least understand her perspective on it and the data that she is presenting seem to support her hypothesis.

Dangerous? Yes -- sure.
Deadly: only for the very old and already sick -- 99% of the people who died were suffering from something else PRIOR to the virus..
Worth cancelling everything and destroying our economy over it?? No -- absolutely no.
and now, we are talking about 2 Trillions (With a T) of printed money...
A complete disaster for nothing...



"Worth cancelling everything and destroying our economy over it?? No -- absolutely no.
and now, we are talking about 2 Trillions (With a T) of printed money...
A complete disaster for nothing... "

Wow can you not read as well as a junior high school student. This isn't rocket science. The number of deaths will be huge if we over whelm our hospitals. The US is 37 in the world for healthcare. What do you not get about that? Doctors and nurses are screaming we are not ready, they are not reactionary people as a whole. And Dr. Fauci you think you know better than him?????? Ridiculous thought process.