Jump to content

Apophis

Enthusiast
  • Content Count

    487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Apophis last won the day on August 15 2018

Apophis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

782 Excellent

About Apophis

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Philly

Recent Profile Visitors

449 profile views
  1. I have Borderline Personality Disorder & High Functioning Autism, the former of which is pretty gnarly stuff, really. I've learned to accept that anxiety is just going to be a part of my life. Therapy is a must. CBD really does help as @PB GFI has said. I loooove talking about existential stuff though, I think about it everyday. The why's in life.
  2. "H1N1 should is not in the same category as COVID-19" You're right, H1N1 ended up infecting around a billion people, something this disease probably will never accomplish, assuming the disease calms down in the summer. see ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3151238/… and https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-03-17/coronavirus-may-slow-by-summer-with-warmer-temperature-humidity Your argument appears to be based on the mortality rate and the rate of spread. I submit it is only the latter of the two that we have to worry about (as will be argued below), but the question of the inevitability of the spread of the disease is interesting, and whether it is therefore worth it to put a full stop on the US economy. And again, as I've said above, I don't disagree with shutting plenty of social settings down. "Just 0.5% of U.S. cases required hospitalization (274,300 out of 60.8 million cases)." People didnt really seem to take H1N1 serious at first, doesnt the fear and insane media coverage surrounding this disease encourage more people to go to the hospital, thereby inflating the number when comparing it to previous diseases? "Early data, which is from China, indicated that 15% of COVID-19 patients required hospitalization." Was the severity of the condition primary the reason for the hospitalization though? Keep in mind, China is a authoritarian state and are doing horrendous crimes against humanity there currently. If officials see you sick, they're likely going to send you to their hospitals. At least at first anyway, when they were trying to cover up the disease for over a month, which makes statistics from China already suspicious for proper evaluation. "Put simply, the R0 for COVID-19 is 37.5% or more above that of H1N1 and the share of patients requiring hospitalization--if the experience in China is representative--is more than 30 times greater than that for H1N1." I submit these are incomplete figures, since these same experts claim that more people are likely infected than the official number currently(which doesnt appear challenged here). Additionally, China and Italy (the leading source of mortality currently) both have highly anomalous population distribution (as I've argued earlier) in favor of elders, so these countries will have a higher mortality rate than America, the setting of my argument, by reason of the exponential mortality this disease has as you age, and the fact that there are probably hardly any young workers to aid the elderly sick due to said population distribution, which has only continued to get worse. "In this case, public health needs to be prioritized over other considerations. " The extent of which is what I'm simply questioning.
  3. 1st article: "According to Nature, the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is becoming unstoppable and has already reached the necessary epidemiological criteria for it to be declared a pandemic, having infected more than 100 000 people in 100 countries" "Given that the mortality of patients who are critically ill with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is high and that the survival time of non-survivors is 1–2 weeks, the number of people infected in Italy will probably impose a major strain on critical care facilities in our hospitals, some of which do not have adequate resources or staff to deal with this emergency. In the Lombardy region, despite extraordinary efforts to restrict the movement of people at the expense of the Italian economy, we are dealing with an even greater fear—that the number of patients who present to the emergency room will become much greater than the system can cope with." An observation, if the Corona virus is unstoppable thereby insinuating that the spread of the virus is inevitable, why introduce another problem, that being, the economy? Further, you commit a false analogy when you compare the medical situation in Italy to that of the US. There are less workers out of the general population to care for the elderly, because the elderly take up an anomalous portion of the population when compared to America. This also, as mentioned before, impacts the mortality rate significantly, as Covid-19 is exponentially deadlier as you advance in age. I think you are taking this stuff at face value. 2nd article: "On February 20, 2020, a patient in his 30s admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in Codogno Hospital (Lodi, Lombardy, Italy) tested positive for a new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). He had a history of atypical pneumonia that was not responding to treatment, but he was not considered at risk for COVID-19 infection.1 The positive result was immediately reported to the Lombardy health care system and governmental offices. During the next 24 hours, the number of reported positive cases increased to 36. This situation was considered a serious development for several reasons: the patient (“patient 1”) was healthy and young; in less than 24 hours, 36 additional cases were identified, without links to patient 1 or previously identified positive cases already in the country; it was not possible to identify with certainty the source of transmission to patient 1 at the time; and, because patient 1 was in the ICU and there were already 36 cases by day 2, chances were that a cluster of unknown magnitude was present and additional spread was likely." Anecdotes are simply not an effective means to argue for something, any intro to Philosophy class will go over this, so I'm a little surprised why this is the introduction this article starts us off with. Furthermore, this article claims "The recognition that this outbreak likely occurred via community spread suggested that a large number of COVID-19–positive patients were already present in the region." This is not something I disagree with really, for the article never explicitly says that it is advisable to shut everything down. So this article appears moot. Additionally, the article claims that "Based on the assumption that secondary transmission was already occurring, and even with containment measures that health authorities were establishing, it was assumed that many new cases of COVID-19 would occur, possibly in the hundreds or thousands of individuals. " This figure is far lower than other outbreaks. These facts you cite here don't seem to contradict my position. @USCG RS" https://doi.org/10.25561/77482" What you've linked to be is an assertive abstract. Most importantly, the article NEVER says to shut everything down. Instead, what it says is: "aimed at reducing contact rates in the population and thereby reducing transmission of the virus." This is not far off from my actual position. If all those experts cited wanted to say that shutting everything down is advisable, they would have done so. But even if this is moot, again, in perspective, 150,000 people die everyday on average. Is this really worth all of the fear? That's all.
  4. "Any precautions we take will have a negative effect on the economy." Fair enough and true, this is inevitable, but this is the largest stock market crash in decades. It nearly rivals the great depression. Now I know the stock market isnt necessarily the end all be all when looking at the economy as a whole, but it is telling of not just the economy, but also of how much fear has enstrangled people. "unfortunately it’s hard to have only partial measures bc partial measures don’t flatten the surge of cases enough. It is true that more restrictive measures also have larger negative impacts on the economy, though they theoretically reduce the surge of patients and allow our healthcare system to manage the influx. If you care about the safety of the healthcare workers on the front lines, the vulnerable people in our population, unfortunately you sometimes need to make difficult decisions." I really don't disagree much with this settlement. I just don't think putting thousands of small businesses in dire risk among plenty of other issues, is necessary. If the spreading of this disease is the concern, which it surely is, why hasn't more practical social settings been shut down? Beaches for example, or look just look all the saint Patty's day events that still carried on? Keep in mind, people (or insurance) has to actually pay for the treatment in which they receive, so you don't want a collapsed economy to suit with the disease, in my opinion. Also, most of my family is in the medical industry, you don't need to worry about me not caring about those in that position. "This includes shutting things down completely and practicing social distancing." Everything though? That is the question at hand. "Ration care? Turn away patients?" What evidence is there that we can't deal with Covid-19? H1N1 infected 60,000,000 people in America.
  5. There will be plenty of convincing me if I am wrong after the fact, I just havent seen much in the way of argumentation back to me besides ad hominem attacks and fallacious appeals to a currently faulty mortality rate, as well as appeals to emotion. Surely no literature has been linked to me either. Keep in mind 93% of people show no severe symptoms, and once again as I stated before to put this in perspective, over 150,000 people die everyday. This pales into comparison (currently) to covid-19. Italy population distribution being favored towards elders is just a fact. Also keep in mind, I am not calling for the entire country with large gatherings etc to still take place, it appears you are just responding out of pure emotion rather than concisely reading my posts.
  6. If I see I am wrong in the end I will personally admit it to you. I am still sticking by my original opinion which is that we shouldn't shut the country down and sink the economy. I think that may do more harm in the end. I'm not saying we shouldn't take any precautions, in fact, we should take plenty. I am for partially shutting things down, for sure, especially large gatherings and what have you, and I know I am certainly taking personal precautions when going out in public etc, but to shut the country down is quite a move. You don't appear very open to discussion either. It's understandable though, everyone is stressed.
  7. The high mortality rate is partially due to socioeconomic issues such as the overflow of health care there (universal health care will do that), but mostly because of the fact that the population distribution in Italy is favored towards elders, who have a higher risk of dying. This is not the case in America.
  8. We don't know yet. We don't know how many people have the disease currently, we are just going by "official figures", which inflates the mortality rate. These facts should be revealed after everything has settled down, surely.
  9. Tootles, than. We saw the overflow THIS YEAR with the flu, see this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/health/hospitals-coronavirus.html and here (17-18): https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ You ought not to posture yourself as an authority figure when you can't even get basic facts right.
  10. This is a strawman, pure and simple. As noted above, I'm not saying we should keep everything open, and individual precaution is key, but shutting down the country? Seriously? In regards to your figures of the mortality rate, once again, as noted above, most experts agree that more people are infected than what is currently being purported. This would inevitably lower the mortality rate of the disease into rates that are more comparable with some past outbreaks. This appeal therefore is fallacious.
  11. You should be just as scared every year than when 50,000 people die each year from Influenza(In the US). Appealing to emotion is not a good standard of measuring truth to the matter.
  12. Yeah this is an issue as well, for sure. I'm not saying open everything, obviously you don't want this thing to spread like previous outbreaks have done, but the prospect of shutting down the country and the sinking of the economy is just unfortunate.
  13. Just a little factoid here: on a average typical day, over 150,000 people die. Over the past three months, aided by China attempting to cover up the disease and poor health management in Italy, the death toll is 8,000. This is around 5% of this figure. Is it really worth sinking the economy and shutting the whole country down? Appeals to the mortality rate being higher with this disease are fallacious, because most experts recognize that more people currently have the disease than what is 'official' right now.
×
×
  • Create New...