"The World Health Organization on Sunday reported the largest single-day increase in coronavirus cases by its count, at more than 183,000 new cases in the latest 24 hours."
there where definitely a few that had Covid parties but for the most part I don't think it is that they don't care. They just don't understand reality. when the media talks about asymptotic people, mild people, death is only for the old with preexisting conditions.... it is easy for people to assume their hopes are realities and that this is no wher4e near as big a deal as they should realise it is.
That is the issues with humanity (as highlighted in the story of Pandora's box). Hope is a double edged sword, it can keep you going when everything is dark and get you to the other side, or it can keep you going when everything is dark and lead you into deaths grasp.
At this point I think there is too much positivity and not enough reality for too many people.
Listen dude I am tired of people like you pointing your finger at people. Do I think the virus is a hoax? Of course not it is real. Do I think people should socially distance, sanitize and wear masks? Yes we should until a vaccine is developed. Is this the end of the world and we should live our lives in a constant state of fear? NO! You talk about reality yet you don't bring up statistics to justify your fears. People who get covid have a 99% recovery rate. It is not a death sentence that you and others want to make it out to be
Today the numbers are way down worldwide (# of deaths).
* Mexico is up right now.
For our fathers ...
Sunday usually has the lowest number of deaths WW and U.S., followed by Monday (due to lags in weekend reporting).
Today's 267 deaths in the U.S. was the lowest since March 23rd, near the beginning of the pandemic 3 months ago. The downward trends continues, with the 7 day moving average declining for the 20th straight day, now at 627. On June 2nd it was 1072, so a 42% drop in less than 3 weeks.
But since cases are rising and deaths a lagging stat, we'll see if that affects the trend in the coming weeks.
Listen dude I am tired of people like you pointing your finger at people. Do I think the virus is a hoax? Of course not it is real. Do I think people should socially distance, sanitize and wear masks? Yes we should until a vaccine is developed. Is this the end of the world and we should live our lives in a constant state of fear? NO! You talk about reality yet you don't bring up statistics to justify your fears. People who get covid have a 99% recovery rate. It is not a death sentence that you and others want to make it out to be
So 1 fatality out of every 100 infected is an acceptable percentage? I'm not saying that's the numbers because it isn't obviously, but you're the one that said 99%. Losing 1 cent out of 100 is not a big deal. 1% of hundreds of millions of people is not an acceptable loss.
And again, people don't just die from this. "Recovery" can still mean years of damaged organs. A story last week reported on a healthy woman in her early 20's that needed a double-lung transplant due to the virus bringer her to near death. It was her only chance at survival. No previous health problems.
Listen dude I am tired of people like you pointing your finger at people. Do I think the virus is a hoax? Of course not it is real. Do I think people should socially distance, sanitize and wear masks? Yes we should until a vaccine is developed. Is this the end of the world and we should live our lives in a constant state of fear? NO! You talk about reality yet you don't bring up statistics to justify your fears. People who get covid have a 99% recovery rate. It is not a death sentence that you and others want to make it out to be
But it has a 20% hospitalization rate. 20% is a A LOT and if you overwhelm the hospital system, the results can be disastrous.
But it has a 20% hospitalization rate. 20% is a A LOT and if you overwhelm the hospital system, the results can be disastrous.
Although I don't have the data handy to back it up, I believe the the hospitalization rate has gone down significantly since the early days. A lot of having to do with demographics.
The average age of infected has gone down, meaning fewer have more severe symptoms. A much larger percentage are Hispanics, which is the driving force behind these spikes.
They are a younger demographic and also less likely to seek medical care as many fear they will die at a facility (and die alone, which is the last thing they want, as Hispanics are very family oriented) or fear they may get reported to INS. Many if not most don't have health insurance either, so they would be worried about a huge hospital bill.
So 1 fatality out of every 100 infected is an acceptable percentage? I'm not saying that's the numbers because it isn't obviously, but you're the one that said 99%. Losing 1 cent out of 100 is not a big deal. 1% of hundreds of millions of people is not an acceptable loss.
And again, people don't just die from this. "Recovery" can still mean years of damaged organs. A story last week reported on a healthy woman in her early 20's that needed a double-lung transplant due to the virus bringer her to near death. It was her only chance at survival. No previous health problems.
Yes but we only hear of those cases because they are not the norm.
... "Recovery" can still mean years of damaged organs. A story last week reported on a healthy woman in her early 20's that needed a double-lung transplant due to the virus bringer her to near death. It was her only chance at survival. No previous health problems.
This is what I find so perplexing. The virus seems to strike randomly with wildly varying levels of severity. A girl in her early 20's that has enjoyed relatively good health needs a double lung transplant vs. someone perhaps 20 years older barely registering any symptoms beyond sniffles associated more with allergies or the common cold. Now I'm hearing that the virus may be more of a vascular issue rather than a respitory one. I've got my own health issues and I should really take all the precautions (I'm doing my best) because I'm definitely a candidate for hospitalization if everything the WHO says about the virus is true but here I am virus-free. Don't feel so hot most of the time but I attribute that to getting old and being out of shape. I usually don't entertain conspiracy theories but I don't know this time.
I don't know. Is it him repeating the same talking points or does he have something new to say?
You need to listen to the full interview Bruce before concluding.
Yes he has lot to say on the state of the affairs concerning health.
AF: Anthony Fauci the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984
MC: Michael Caputo the assistant secretary of Public Affairs at the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
AF: Yeah. Well, one of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are, for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable, they just don't believe science and they don't believe authority. So, when they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it, who's talking about science, that there are some people who just don't believe that. And that's unfortunate because, you know, science is truth. And if you go by the evidence and by the data, you're speaking the truth.
And it's amazing sometimes the denial there is, it's the same thing that gets people who are anti-vaxxers, who don't want people to get vaccinated, even though the data clearly indicate the safety of vaccines. That's really a problem. I think the people who believe or people who understand and have trust in someone who has a very, very long track record of always speaking the truth based on evidence, and I've done that, as you said, through now six administrations. This is my sixth administration.
MC: You know, so it's interesting, doc, because I kind of see that the people who don't believe science are people who believe in absolutes. That the truth is it's either true or it's not.
AF: Right.
MC: And in this process, we've seen the models shift. We've seen the data shift. We've seen an instruction shift. And I think perhaps those who believe in absolute truth, don't really end up being believing science that shifts. Don't you think that in the end, the American people have to begin to understand that science is an absolute truth?
AF: Right.
MC: It really isn't.
AF: Well, science has a -- no, I think we have to be careful we don't confuse people. So, let me take a different perspective, Michael.
MC: I am here to confuse people.
AF: Okay.
[laughter]
AF: Okay. So, science is the attempt in good faith to get to the facts, and it isn't perfect. And what happens is that science can be self-correcting. The beauty of science is that it's self-correcting. So, if somebody comes up with an observation, there could be ways that they gathered the information, that they interpreted the information that isn't really necessarily the way it is. But the beauty of that is that there are so many other people independently, who are asking the same questions that sooner or later, something that really is true, will get confirmed time after time, after time. And something that in good faith was thought to be true but isn't when the scientific process repeats it over and over again, all of a sudden you realize, you know, there was something about that that wasn't quite right.
So, as long as science is humble enough and open enough and transparent enough to excel -- to accept the self-correction. It's a beautiful process. So, the science doesn't change. What it is, is sometimes interpretation. That's the point.
MC: See, I, you know -- and common here, I'm from the, you know, communications arena, from the political arena, you know, doing legal or litigation communications. I did -- science to me -- I had so much trouble with physics Dr. Fauci. I wanted to be an engineer. I got a journalism degree. I'm science stunted. I have a problem, I think, like most Americans. But now that I've been here for a little while, I understand that science is kind of an iterative process. And it's one that eventually you arrive at the absolute truth.
AF: Right.
MC: And I think most -- many Americans haven't. They don't get that that science is really something that thousands of people participate in to end up on one -- in one immutable truth.
Another exert (evidence):
Quote:
MC: And I noticed that you're always frank. You stick with the science. And that confuses some people.
AF: Well, it does. And I do stick to the science. I have the responsibility, which I take very seriously, of always being consistent and basing what you say on evidence. And there are times when you don't have all the evidence you need, but you have to make judgments based on both prior experience and the degree of evidence that you have. When you get more information, you process your information according to the facts and the evidence, which is the reason why when people see what's going on, and you have an evolving outbreak, it's a work in progress or a disaster in progress.
This was unprecedented, you know, and when you give advice about what should you be doing, should you be out there, should you be shutting down earlier versus later? I mean, people get confused. And they say, "Wow, you know, we shut down and we caused a great disruption in society. We caused great economic pain, loss of jobs." But if you look at the data, now that papers have come out literally two days ago, the fact that we shut down when we did and the rest of the world did, has saved hundreds of millions of infections and millions of lives. And yet, there are those who say, "You shut down, you did destructive things by disrupting the economy." And others say, "Well, if you save so many infections by shutting down, why didn't you shut down two weeks earlier? You could have saved many more lives."
So, I think that's where I wouldn't say that confusion is. Sometimes what appears to be inconsistencies, but they're not because at any given moment, you've got to make your decision based on evidence. And it isn't your decision. It's your advice and your guidelines because the people who make the decisions at the top of the top, the President and the Vice President, and at the local level, the governors and the mayors, they take into account advice and recommendations, not only from the health sector, but from the economic sector, from the political sector, from things that they're responsible for.
So, the thing we have to stick by our guns in the sense of we got to make sure that we make consistently the public health recommendation based on the truth and the evidence as we have it.
MC: And the fact is, the evidence we -- as we have it is shifting.
AF: Yeah.
MC: So, some people when they hear about masks, no mask, you know, spike, no spike, you know, et cetera, they don't they don't understand that with the shifting evidence comes some shifting advice.
AF: Yeah. I mean, I think a typical example of that was the misunderstanding about masks. At a time when there was a shortage of PPE and a shortage of masks, many health officials, myself included, were saying, "Masks are not perfect." The people who really need the masks, the N95s and other masks, the surgical masks, are the people in the healthcare community who in fact, are putting themselves in harm's way every day to take care of sick people.
So, it would be terrible if all of a sudden everybody started hoarding masks so when they weren't available, and the health care providers wouldn't have it. Then when it became clear that there was transmission by people who without symptoms, that you can't assume that if you walk out in your society and someone is not coughing and is not sneezing that you're okay. Because we know now that 25 to 45 percent of people who are infected are asymptomatic.
Therefore, there's a compelling reason to wear a mask. One, in case I am infected, but one of those asymptomatic carriers, I'm not going to spread the infection to a vulnerable person who might actually get very sick and die; or if I'm uninfected and somebody else is infected, that they are going to -- there are going to infect me if I don't have a mask. So, right now people are saying, "Well, wait a minute, a couple of months ago, you said, don't worry about masks." The situation has changed. It's changed because we now have enough masks for the healthcare providers and we know that if the infection can be spread from an asymptomatic person.
I know, many people are not in love with Doc Fauci. And masks is a delicate and controversial subject.
It is what it is.
Last edited by LordoftheRings; 06-22-2020 at 05:47 PM.
Reason: Type-O
This is what I find so perplexing. The virus seems to strike randomly with wildly varying levels of severity. A girl in her early 20's that has enjoyed relatively good health needs a double lung transplant vs. someone perhaps 20 years older barely registering any symptoms beyond sniffles associated more with allergies or the common cold. Now I'm hearing that the virus may be more of a vascular issue rather than a respitory one. I've got my own health issues and I should really take all the precautions (I'm doing my best) because I'm definitely a candidate for hospitalization if everything the WHO says about the virus is true but here I am virus-free. Don't feel so hot most of the time but I attribute that to getting old and being out of shape. I usually don't entertain conspiracy theories but I don't know this time.
Immune systems are funny things. I have an Uncompromised system but I get sick a lot less than my family.
....It is not a death sentence that you and others want to make it out to be
It’s not all about mortality, don’t discount the suffering (and needless at that, if public health guidelines are not being complied with by everyone either due to defiance, ignorance or inconvenience). What we’re learning from patients about the morbidity of COVID-19 – https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ms-paul-garner
and what we don’t know about possible long-term effects…..
“Physicians and public health experts say more research—and time—is needed to understand the long-term effects of Covid-19 and the complications patients might encounter down the line and whether they have a chance of recovery.
"It is a true roller coaster of symptoms and severities, with each new day offering many unknowns," said Lauren Nichols, a Covid-19 survivor who experienced symptoms for eight weeks. "I may feel healthier one day but may feel utterly debilitated and in pain the next" (Parshley, Vox, 5/8) https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...health-effects
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Global Deaths Due to Various Causes and COVID-19
Linear Mode
