What about those

[Unveiled Artist]

Because the reality is that the numbers are going up?

What are you wanting? A happy piece talking about how some, even many people, recover from this?

Doesn't that just minimize the impact of this terrible disease?

If we had a new type of cancer that was spreading and killing as many people as this virus is, do you really think we should focus on those that recovered?

If you watch the video, it's not political at all.

Like I said. There are many cancer organizations that give children with testimonies of recovery and other things of that nature.

Like I said. I didn't say focus on either or... nor did I say this thread is about media and politics (thereby not in the political section). It would help on RF to not always talk about people who are positive with COVID.

Since it's not an either or, no, I don't see that as minimizing the disease. If I'm dying in the hospital, I wouldn't think talking about people recovering from illnesses devaluing people who died from it.

I've been in the hospital hundreds of times and no doctor would ever put in death-rates of illness of a sick patient who isn't (or is) dying.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But the numbers are NOT going down, in the USA at least. They are skyrocketing, as are the hospital admissions. So why would we talk about something dangerously imaginary?

Now, I can talk about the numbers going down in the UK if you prefer. Because they are, thanks to the semi-lockdown we have just had. Would you like to discuss that?

I'm talking about the psychological issues and attitudes looking at numbers. It has (and never has) nothing to do with politics-hence why it was in general discussion and focused on tips to help recovering people. I mean I can show spiked deaths and yell at anti-mask people if you like, but that's just not me.

Has nothing to do with the media and politics. But I asked Polymath to switch the thread section, so.

 

[Koldo]

Yes. But the whole point of the thread wasn't to get into a political debate over numbers. Maybe it's the way I smell, or something, but the whole thing was to focus on the positives and the video had nothing to do with politics. I can get upset over anything in the media, but not to where its going to make me fuss at others for it.

Let me explain this as you might genuinely not be aware:

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to treat Covid as a death sentence. The problem though is that...

1) It is way too hard for many average folks to understand the difference between "This is not a death sentence." and "This is not a big deal.". If it is not a death sentence, it is not a big deal, therefore I am not going to care about it. That's how many people think.

2) Bringing up the number of people that have recovered from Covid is one of the strategies used to downplay the disease. For many average folks, if the proportion of people dying is small, they just don't care about those deaths.

3) Consider it like this: Even if you feel like Covid is getting treated like a death sentence, have we essentially eradicated the disease? No, far from that. Imagine what is going to be like if everyone starts to treat it as something less than that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The people who are recovering aren't dying. The focus should be on saving those who are in the midst of the infection and need help to recover.

That's one of the things in the video-though short. Tips to help people recover.

1) It is way too hard for many average folks to understand the difference between "This is not a death sentence." and "This is not a big deal.". If it is not a death sentence, it is not a big deal, therefore I am not going to care about it. That's how many people think.

Oh. That wasn't my intent. "Scientifically" people do recover. I didn't meant to devalue it as an either or scenario.

2) Bringing up the number of people that have recovered from Covid is one of the strategies used to downplay the disease. For many average folks, if the proportion of people dying is small, they just don't care about those deaths.

That's sad. Kind of like out of sight, out of mind.

I'm genuinely asking this. If we showed the number of people in US compared to the number of people who died directly from COVID, would that look like it devalues the deaths of people?''

Makes it seem like (through media) we need to know there is a hell to wish for a heaven-if you get my drift.

3) Consider it like this: Even if you feel like Covid is getting treated like a death sentence, have we essentially eradicated the disease? No, far from that. Imagine what is going to be like if everyone starts to treat it as something less than that.

I think COVID is treated like a death sentence-which makes sense psychologically speaking and it's a new virus, so. A lot of high risk people, so it's not in that respect. When I think death sentence, I think of plague-you get it, you catch it, you drop dead.

But my tone and opinions aren't meant to devalue COVID. My mother is at high risk and we talk sometimes about it and no hard feelings arise from it.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah. I'm not a political debater. But I'm sure many would like to talk about it nonetheless. Thanks.

Thread moved to General Debates.

 

[exchemist]

I'm talking about the psychological issues and attitudes looking at numbers. It has (and never has) nothing to do with politics-hence why it was in general discussion and focused on tips to help recovering people. I mean I can show spiked deaths and yell at anti-mask people if you like, but that's just not me.

Has nothing to do with the media and politics. But I asked Polymath to switch the thread section, so.

OK, my offer stands. I have a science background and I'm not interested in the silly politics that has become attached to this virus issue in the USA. So, if you want a break from negativity, I can talk to you about how the countermeasures in the UK have succeeded in bringing R down from 1.1-1.3 to 0.8-1. That is a success and takes the heat off our hospitals, for a while. Do you want more details?

 

[Polymath257]

I'm genuinely asking this. If we showed the number of people in US compared to the number of people who died directly from COVID, would that look like it devalues the deaths of people?''

Yes, likely. That is one of the examples of 'lying with graphs': you make a serious problem look like it isn't serious by putting into a large population.

At this point, just under 1 in 20 people in the US have been infected with this virus. of those, about 1 in 50 have died. That means that a bit less than 1 in 1000 people in the US have died of this disease.


E]Makes it seem like (through media) we need to know there is a hell to wish for a heaven-if you get my drift.

I think COVID is treated like a death sentence-which makes sense psychologically speaking and it's a new virus, so. A lot of high risk people, so it's not in that respect. When I think death sentence, I think of plague-you get it, you catch it, you drop dead.[/QUOTE]

Which wasn't the average experience of even the plague. A few people recovered even there.

But recall that the bubonic plague was an extreme. Much more common is the experience of smallpox. Again, this often reached pandemic proportions, killed many in its path, while a good percentage recovered.

But, when smallpox came through, people responded by taking precautions.

But my tone and opinions aren't meant to devalue COVID. My mother is at high risk and we talk sometimes about it and no hard feelings arise from it.

I think one of the downsides of our ability to eliminate many diseases over the last century has been an ignorance concerning what needs to be done to prevent epidemics and pandemics. Among other things is the idea that unless a disease kills 70% of those infected, it isn't really serious.

But it is very rarely the case that a disease kills that percentage of those infected. We have to remember that a disease that kills 2% of those infected and hits 10% of the population can still cripple an economy and leave too many people and their families devastated.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. But the whole point of the thread wasn't to get into a political debate over numbers. Maybe it's the way I smell, or something, but the whole thing was to focus on the positives and the video had nothing to do with politics. I can get upset over anything in the media, but not to where its going to make me fuss at others for it.

It is sad that simple precautions, like wearing a mask and social distancing have become political issues.

They shouldn't be: they are simply public health steps needed to combat this virus.

Those who have made it into a political football should be condemned.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But the numbers are NOT going down, in the USA at least. They are skyrocketing, as are the hospital admissions. So why would we talk about something dangerously imaginary?

Now, I can talk about the numbers going down in the UK if you prefer. Because they are, thanks to the semi-lockdown we have just had. Would you like to discuss that?

When you say numbers aren't going down assumes no one is recovering. I don't know about UK, but US media is highly negative-oriented regardless the topic. I think one time in the 70s or so they had "good news" but I only heard that once awhile back.

I was on Quora and they were saying in California, the tier level lockdowns, people can only go out their homes twice a week to get groceries. No one really talks about uplifting our economy in the states-deaths and Trump that's about it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

OK, my offer stands. I have a science background and I'm not interested in the silly politics that has become attached to this virus issue in the USA. So, if you want a break from negativity, I can talk to you about how the countermeasures in the UK have succeeded in bringing R down from 1.1-1.3 to 0.8-1. That is a success and takes the heat off our hospitals, for a while. Do you want more details?

What does R stand for?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, likely. That is one of the examples of 'lying with graphs': you make a serious problem look like it isn't serious by putting into a large population.

At this point, just under 1 in 20 people in the US have been infected with this virus. of those, about 1 in 50 have died. That means that a bit less than 1 in 1000 people in the US have died of this disease.

I never really thought of that-people not taking it seriously because the numbers shift. Even the opposite, what we have now, there's a "war."

I think one of the downsides of our ability to eliminate many diseases over the last century has been an ignorance concerning what needs to be done to prevent epidemics and pandemics. Among other things is the idea that unless a disease kills 70% of those infected, it isn't really serious.

I don't know about other countries, but US has always been about what's "largest" causes the greatest threat (wealth, prestige, etc). Not bad in itself, just in certain situations.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is sad that simple precautions, like wearing a mask and social distancing have become political issues.

They shouldn't be: they are simply public health steps needed to combat this virus.

Those who have made it into a political football should be condemned.

I can see why, though. Months ago when our governor was giving the mask mandates, he and his peers (majority of them) didn't wear masks. Probably every other person did when they had the full conferences. Even when doctors et cetera commented on the severity of the virus and things of that nature, the actions were just the same. I also don't believe we will combat the virus (that would be odd to do so in such a short time period).

It is sad, but I thin if it were addressed by the medical doctors and organizations primarily and not the government (especially during the Trump issues), it would have been better received.

If I chose to have people condemned it would be pro and anti maskers who fuss at each other. Put ya'll in a corner so the rest of us can tackle the actual issue. Opinions are just that but opinions can get one killed-both pro and anti maskers.

Edit.

Also, another reason for the resistance is marketing masks and things of that nature. It makes it seem less of a health issue.

 

[exchemist]

What does R stand for?

R is the reproduction number, that is the number of people that each infected person goes on to infect. If R>1 you have an exponential growth in infection. If R<1 you have an exponential fall-off in cases and the epidemic progressively dies away. The goal of all the public precautions is to get R down to below 1.

 

[exchemist]

When you say numbers aren't going down assumes no one is recovering. I don't know about UK, but US media is highly negative-oriented regardless the topic. I think one time in the 70s or so they had "good news" but I only heard that once awhile back.

I was on Quora and they were saying in California, the tier level lockdowns, people can only go out their homes twice a week to get groceries. No one really talks about uplifting our economy in the states-deaths and Trump that's about it.

Oh I see what you mean. You certainly need to be sure you know which numbers are being talked about. The numbers I have been talking about have been the numbers of new cases reported, or estimated from testing representative samples of the population, each day. Those numbers are going up in the USA, indicating an epidemic that is getting worse.

The numbers of new hospital admissions rise in proportion, but normally with a 1-2 week lag, because people only become ill enough to be sent to hospital 1-2 weeks after initial infection. The deaths lag a further 1-2 weeks behind the hospital admissions, since it takes 1-2 weeks after hospital admission before people die.

The aim of the UK government has been to put in place measures strong enough to stop the epidemic growing to the point at which the hospitals can no longer cope, but no more than that, since anything they do hurts the economy and people's wellbeing. It's a tricky balancing act. They've made a lot of mistakes but it's understandable since nobody knows exactly which countermeasures have the most impact on the R number. They are now trying to keep schools open as first priority, since that is good for the children and also enables their parents to work. Restaurants and bars are thought to be the worst place for spreading the virus so they are tightly controlled and in many cases closed. It's very tough for that sector but we have no realistic choice.

The first vaccinations will start tomorrow, aimed initially at health and front line care workers and the over 80s.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh I see what you mean. You certainly need to be sure you know which numbers are being talked about. The numbers I have been talking about have been the numbers of new cases reported, or estimated from testing representative samples of the population, each day. Those numbers are going up in the USA, indicating an epidemic that is getting worse.

The numbers of new hospital admissions rise in proportion, but normally with a 1-2 week lag, because people only become ill enough to be sent to hospital 1-2 weeks after initial infection. The deaths lag a further 1-2 weeks behind the hospital admissions, since it takes 1-2 weeks after hospital admission before people die.

The aim of the UK government has been to put in place measures strong enough to stop the epidemic growing to the point at which the hospitals can no longer cope, but no more than that, since anything they do hurts the economy and people's wellbeing. It's a tricky balancing act. They've made a lot of mistakes but it's understandable since nobody knows exactly which countermeasures have the most impact on the R number. They are now trying to keep schools open as first priority, since that is good for the children and also enables their parents to work. Restaurants and bars are thought to be the worst place for spreading the virus so they are tightly controlled and in many cases closed. It's very tough for that sector but we have no realistic choice.

The first vaccinations will start tomorrow, aimed initially at health and front line care workers and the over 80s.

Will read. I'm not sure about R etc but I'd put more stock in deaths and hospitalizations (if I chose to stay on that side of the boat) than cases. I was getting tested at the hospital a month ago and they said they were a COVID-Free hospital. All potential cases, even just a sniffle, gets sent over to the main hospital up the street. They "have" to report it as a case.

So, unless cases mean those already diagnosed, those numbers I disregard.

 

[exchemist]

Will read. I'm not sure about R etc but I'd put more stock in deaths and hospitalizations (if I chose to stay on that side of the boat) than cases. I was getting tested at the hospital a month ago and they said they were a COVID-Free hospital. All potential cases, even just a sniffle, gets sent over to the main hospital up the street. They "have" to report it as a case.

So, unless cases mean those already diagnosed, those numbers I disregard.

No. Cases are very important, because they tell you what the load on your hospitals will be in 1-2 weeks time and what deaths you can expect in 2-4 weeks time. If you try to control the epidemic relying on hospital admissions, or even worse on deaths, you will always be playing catch-up, because of the time lag.

Playing catch-up with something that grows exponentially is VERY DANGEROUS. There is a thing called the "doubling time" with an exponential. In the spring the doubling time in the UK was 3-4 days. So if you were a week late with your countermeasures, the epidemic was almost 4 times worse than if you had acted promptly!! Now, with R close to 1, as a result of mask-wearing, social distancing and people working from home where they can, the doubling time is far longer so it is less likely to run disastrously out of control, but you still need to get it below 1 to prevent the hospitals from being eventually overwhelmed.