Who is there to get angry with?

Pepper said:
I wasn't doing case fatality. I was doing what percentage is 20,000 deaths out of a population of 3.5 million. The population figure isn't too way off.
Click to expand...
What might it have been without social distancing? At what point does it become worthwhile to pay attention to this?
When it hits one's own family perhaps?

To look at it a different way, of a total (1933 census) German population of 65,000,000, the Nazis killed approximately 160,000 German Jews during their regime of terror, so 2/10 of 1% of the German population. Gee, what the heck was all the fuss about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_in_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

I verified these figures with a number of sources but am citing Wikipedia because it's easy to find the census and other data there.
 

Why quoting Wiki stuff as truth is potentially dangerous: Came across this the other day by accident:
"The chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration is without a doubt Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Fauci is all over the media, serving up outright falsehoods to stir up even more panic. He testified to Congress that the death rate for the coronavirus is ten times that of the seasonal flu, a claim without any scientific basis. On Face the Nation, Fauci did his best to further damage an already tanking economy by stating, “Right now, personally, myself, I wouldn’t go to a restaurant.” He has pushed for closing the entire country down for 14 days. Over what? A virus that has thus far killed just over 5,000 worldwide and less than 100 in the United States? By contrast, tuberculosis, an old disease not much discussed these days, killed nearly 1.6 million people in 2017. Where’s the panic over this? If anything, what people like Fauci and the other fearmongers are demanding will likely make the disease worse."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci

Was hoping it would be gone by now, but apparently not. Not saying you gave wrong info @StarSong, just saying Wiki is potentially wacky.
 

Pepper said:
Why quoting Wiki stuff as truth is potentially dangerous: Came across this the other day by accident:
"The chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration is without a doubt Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Fauci is all over the media, serving up outright falsehoods to stir up even more panic. He testified to Congress that the death rate for the coronavirus is ten times that of the seasonal flu, a claim without any scientific basis. On Face the Nation, Fauci did his best to further damage an already tanking economy by stating, “Right now, personally, myself, I wouldn’t go to a restaurant.” He has pushed for closing the entire country down for 14 days. Over what? A virus that has thus far killed just over 5,000 worldwide and less than 100 in the United States? By contrast, tuberculosis, an old disease not much discussed these days, killed nearly 1.6 million people in 2017. Where’s the panic over this? If anything, what people like Fauci and the other fearmongers are demanding will likely make the disease worse."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci

Was hoping it would be gone by now, but apparently not. Not saying you gave wrong info @StarSong, just saying Wiki is potentially wacky.
Click to expand...
Re: Tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is much easier to catch because it's airborne. Most of us have been exposed to it.
 
Becky1951 said:
What percentage of lives would be lost if we do not accept some form of lockdown?
No easy answer either way unfortunately. 😥
Click to expand...

My question as to the percentage of the world economy that might be lost, so what would be acceptable do you think? 50%?

How many lives lost is probably easier to provide an answer to, at least the high estimate I'd guess, but how much it can be reduced by developing more successful therapies is less certain. I agree with the current lockdown, "reluctantly" because it will delay the spread, I think that's established well enough. However, I doubt the world can tolerate this situation for many months.
 
The CDC claims that the flu kills 290,000 - 650,000 people each year. I don't know what the percentage works out to, but it seems Corona is not as dangerous, or at least no worse. Either can be deadly in anyone. In rare cases, without underlying conditions.
What's interesting is that there is a flu vaccine (whether it's effective is another story) & no Corona vaccine.
Traffic deaths are around 53,000 per year.
 
I think the point is that on top of all the other deaths from everything else we have to contend with, we/humanity now has these deaths on top of those. I saw a report that NY usually has 25 deaths a day but now there are 250 a day.

At what point do the deaths surpass the births? That’s what we have to worry about as a species, IMO. However, I am not getting pregnant. 😱🤔😂
 
Aneeda72 said:
I think the point is that on top of all the other deaths from everything else we have to contend with, we/humanity now has these deaths on top of those. I saw a report that NY usually has 25 deaths a day but now there are 250 a day.

At what point do the deaths surpass the births? That’s what we have to worry about as a species, IMO. However, I am not getting pregnant. 😱🤔😂
Click to expand...
Me, neither.
 
I find it sad to hear cavalier dismissal of avoidable deaths as trivial.

Hubby and I have had a discussion about what we will do should either of us become infected.
We have decided that as far as is possible we would like to stay at home with oxygen therapy to ease breathing but neither of us wants to go into intensive care with intubation. If we follow this approach it is almost certain that we will both die but that is our choice. On the other hand, if we insist on going out and about and we infect our friends and other strangers how selfish is that?

Talk of percentages is easy but the death of even one loved one, if it could have been prevented, is very hard. That is why people volunteer to patrol Australian beaches even though the number of people who drown each year is miniscule as a percentage of the total population. It is why bystanders call for an ambulance when someone is injured inside a car after a road accident. It is why some people learn first aid so that they might be able to do more than just make a phone call.

How hard is it to just stay at home for the sake of our neighbours?
 
Warrigal said:
I find it sad to hear cavalier dismissal of avoidable deaths as trivial.

Hubby and I have had a discussion about what we will do should either of us become infected.
We have decided that as far as is possible we would like to stay at home with oxygen therapy to ease breathing but neither of us wants to go into intensive care with intubation. If we follow this approach it is almost certain that we will both die but that is our choice. On the other hand, if we insist on going out and about and we infect our friends and other strangers how selfish is that?

Talk of percentages is easy but the death of even one loved one, if it could have been prevented, is very hard. That is why people volunteer to patrol Australian beaches even though the number of people who drown each year is miniscule as a percentage of the total population. It is why bystanders call for an ambulance when someone is injured inside a car after a road accident. It is why some people learn first aid so that they might be able to do more than just make a phone call.

How hard is it to just stay at home for the sake of our neighbours?
Click to expand...

How hard will it be to face the loss of loved ones if the shutdown of the world economy results in more deaths by the ensuing poverty than this virus pandemic?

These kind of assessments are being made by the likes of professor Phillip Thomas, from Bristol university, whose expertise is in "risk management (he's been quoted in our newspapers).

Its worth thinking about announcements overnight concerning Spain and Italy, two countries suffering the worst infection rates, and numbers of deaths in the world, are about to relax their shutdowns a little, to allow some construction workers to return to work for example.
 
Last edited:
We can rebuild economies and already businesses are adapting using 21st century technologies. If institutions as old as the churches can explore new ways of operation, so can commerce.

Every cloud has a silver lining. Currently air pollution is way down resulting in less deaths from acute asthma. Even the air above Beijing is clear and blue. I've seen it, and the air above Cairo earlier this century and it was horrendous in both cities.
 
Warrigal said:
We can rebuild economies and already businesses are adapting using 21st century technologies. If institutions as old as the churches can explore new ways of operation, so can commerce.

Every cloud has a silver lining. Currently air pollution is way down resulting in less deaths from acute asthma. Even the air above Beijing is clear and blue. I've seen it, and the air above Cairo earlier this century and it was horrendous in both cities.
Click to expand...

I accept your comments about environmental benefits, or potential future benefits, but beyond that I have to say I think you're being blaise about the consequences of the economic damage all this is causing (albeit reduced output and reductions in greenhouse gases go together).
 
Warrigal said:
I find it sad to hear cavalier dismissal of avoidable deaths as trivial.

Hubby and I have had a discussion about what we will do should either of us become infected.
We have decided that as far as is possible we would like to stay at home with oxygen therapy to ease breathing but neither of us wants to go into intensive care with intubation. If we follow this approach it is almost certain that we will both die but that is our choice. On the other hand, if we insist on going out and about and we infect our friends and other strangers how selfish is that?

Talk of percentages is easy but the death of even one loved one, if it could have been prevented, is very hard. That is why people volunteer to patrol Australian beaches even though the number of people who drown each year is miniscule as a percentage of the total population. It is why bystanders call for an ambulance when someone is injured inside a car after a road accident. It is why some people learn first aid so that they might be able to do more than just make a phone call.

How hard is it to just stay at home for the sake of our neighbours?
Click to expand...
For some, it’s impossible to stay home. I shop a lot to get what those in my family need. It actually makes more sense for me to go as an elder. I’m old enough to die and ready. They are not.

Besides, I have the time to go store to store, they do not. I can get some stuff on amazon as well. Slap a mask on, gloves, wipes in my car, 6 foot distancing, husband driving, and fight the good fight. We can win this, it will pass, humanity will survive!
 
Aneeda, what do you mean by fighting the good fight? Is it the virus you fight, or the crowds in the shops you frequent on behalf of your family? Are your family members OK with you putting your life at risk on their behalf? To shop for them?

There are other ways. I could shop for my family online, have the goods delivered to their addresses and then receive recompense directly by money transfer to my bank account. In reality I don't need to do that because they can do their own shopping online. This is the 21st century and we have many options that our forebears did not.
 
Warrigal said:
Aneeda, what do you mean by fighting the good fight? Is it the virus you fight, or the crowds in the shops you frequent on behalf of your family? Are your family members OK with you putting your life at risk on their behalf? To shop for them?

There are other ways. I could shop for my family online, have the goods delivered to their addresses and then receive recompense directly by money transfer to my bank account. In reality I don't need to do that because they can do their own shopping online. This is the 21st century and we have many options that our forebears did not.
Click to expand...
Fighting the virus. I stay away from crowded stores, shop early in the morning. The risk is small and I am careful. I make my husband be careful. The family would prefer we stay home, but I would not stay anyway.

I don‘t take money from my family, never understood why people do that. Money is nothing, family is everything. Besides, I got the stimulus money coming. None of us make over 100,000. Will never understand how people make/get so much money. Thanks for your concern.
 
I offered to shop for a couple of the old ladies in my church. I let them know that I would be visiting a food market (that is not crowded) and asked for a shopping list. I shopped for all three of us but that was about 10 days ago. I will do the same in about 3 days. That will then be my outing for the next fortnight unless I need a script filled from the pharmacy.

Social isolation is not an end in itself. The key to getting on top of the epidemic is to cut down its transmission rate. I heard today that the rate of new infections in Australia is now under 2%. When we can get it down to less than 1% we will have a good chance of eliminating it, or at the very least, keeping it under control. We're close, and now is not the time to stop what we have been doing.
 
win231 said:
The CDC claims that the flu kills 290,000 - 650,000 people each year.
Click to expand...
What is the source of these numbers, Win? For the most recent nine completed flu seasons, the CDC estimates for flu and flu related deaths average 37,400 per year. (CDC data linked below) As of this morning the reported Covid-19 death toll in the US is just over 22,000. That's 60% of the average annual deaths from influenza. Today, it has only been 44 days since the first Covid-19 death was reported in Kirkland, Washington. Sixty percent in only 44 days even WITH all of the extraordinary steps that have been taken and the body count keeps rising.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
 
Tommy said:
What is the source of these numbers, Win? For the most recent nine completed flu seasons, the CDC estimates for flu and flu related deaths average 37,400 per year. (CDC data linked below) As of this morning the reported Covid-19 death toll in the US is just over 22,000. That's 60% of the average annual deaths from influenza. Today, it has only been 44 days since the first Covid-19 death was reported in Kirkland, Washington. Sixty percent in only 44 days even WITH all of the extraordinary steps that have been taken and the body count keeps rising.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
Click to expand...
Great reply..I have tried to stop posting what I read on the web..
 
My wife and I express a fair amount of profanity at the TV set during news broadcasts. At some future point we will have to retrain ourselves to stop talking like angry Chief Boatswain Mates, but for now we release considerable frustration and hostility.

Thankfully, the two Bichons are unable to repeat what they hear us say, …… at least to the best of our knowledge.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top