Posted by 06gsp on 3/15/2020 3:11:00 PM (view original):
what do you consider the acceptable number of potential deaths before shutting down public gatherings becomes an option?

No way to answer that question right now. How many people are actually at risk of death vs just having a bad cold? It's not like we've never had a virus like this before...it's happened off and on over at least the past 10 years. We didn't shut the world down for any of those, and from the sounds of it children aren't included in the risk pool as they were in the past. So why the reaction this time? Maybe there's something we don't know. It seems like an overreach, but I don't pretend to have all of the information.

It's not just about that though...the panic did far more damage to most people than the virus will. Small businesses will close leaving people unemployed. People close to retirement may have lost 20% of their 401k. Restaurants and retail (both low margin business for the most part) are going to get hit hard as well.

Now of all things the area around Philly is closing liquor stores. What's the logic behind that? Cruises are shut down (and I'm actually okay with that given that a lot of passengers are in the at risk category), but people came back from cruises and jumped on airplanes to fly across the country all week long. There's no consistency or logic to any of it...it's like they are just trying to feel good about doing something no matter what the consequences of those actions are. You can't make decisions in a vacuum.

They were prepared on 9/11 to shoot down passenger jets killing people on board. Why? Because harming a few is better than harming a lot. So I can't answer your question, but I can tell you that even though I know you weren't really asking a question, there is an answer to it. How many at risk people are acceptable losses instead of harming the entire country? I don't claim to know the answer, but I am not naive enough to think there isn't one.

This virus may be mild to many, but can be lethal once it takes hold in the esophagus and lungs. Many patients deteriorate rapidly. Ages 50 and up are at real risk here. This isn't something that Alka-Seltzer Plus takes care of...people really do need to minimize risk by avoiding exposure. Large gatherings of people should be avoided. Read about how differently Philadelphia and St. Louis dealt with the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak, and how it impacted mortality rates. That might give you an idea why people are taking these precautions.

I for one was initially very skeptical of needing to take precautions for this. My attitude has done a 180...you or I could very well have mild effects, but pass it on to someone it could hospitalize or even kill.

A temporary halt to convenience and sporting events seems like a small thing to potentially saving droves of lives. My 2 cents.

Posted by DoctorKz on 3/15/2020 4:45:00 PM (view original):
This virus may be mild to many, but can be lethal once it takes hold in the esophagus and lungs. Many patients deteriorate rapidly. Ages 50 and up are at real risk here. This isn't something that Alka-Seltzer Plus takes care of...people really do need to minimize risk by avoiding exposure. Large gatherings of people should be avoided. Read about how differently Philadelphia and St. Louis dealt with the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak, and how it impacted mortality rates. That might give you an idea why people are taking these precautions.

I for one was initially very skeptical of needing to take precautions for this. My attitude has done a 180...you or I could very well have mild effects, but pass it on to someone it could hospitalize or even kill.

A temporary halt to convenience and sporting events seems like a small thing to potentially saving droves of lives. My 2 cents.

Those people at risk are responsible for themselves. They need to self quarantine. They need to stay out of groups. The people that live with and care for them need to. The government doesn't need to be telling everyone else what to do. When did we stop taking any responsibility for ourselves? It's not about sports; it's about the shotgun/dartboard decision-making that is going on to make it look like they are doing something when they have no idea what they are doing.

My wife is a childhood diabetic. I'm not going to concerts or sporting events. We'll do what we need to do...I'm not expecting the rest of the world to save her.

I actually think the logic to closing the liquor stores was to protect the employees. Remember in PA they are state owned. But by announcing it they created a. Panic rush. Would have been better to lock the door at the end of thr night and put up a sin.

However maybe the gov hates the Irish, after all the Irish have hated each other for 100+ years. I had grandparents and great grandparents from the Republic and ULSTER and felt the prejudice my mother faced.

Posted by fatguyrd on 3/15/2020 4:56:00 PM (view original):
I actually think the logic to closing the liquor stores was to protect the employees. Remember in PA they are state owned. But by announcing it they created a. Panic rush. Would have been better to lock the door at the end of thr night and put up a sin.

However maybe the gov hates the Irish, after all the Irish have hated each other for 100+ years. I had grandparents and great grandparents from the Republic and ULSTER and felt the prejudice my mother faced.

But employees at other places are on their own? That's exactly my point. There's no logic to the decision-making.

Ok, I'm done...this is not the right place for this and not why you started this.

There's no chance the season gets cancelled. If it does, we're all screwed way beyond a baseball season.

I'm failing to grasp your thinking all at risk people are ok to potentially sacrifice.

Posted by mensu1954 on 3/15/2020 5:20:00 PM (view original):
I'm failing to grasp your thinking all at risk people are ok to potentially sacrifice.

That's because if you think that was my point then you're failing to understand any of it.

Posted by slashtc on 3/15/2020 4:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by 06gsp on 3/15/2020 3:11:00 PM (view original):
what do you consider the acceptable number of potential deaths before shutting down public gatherings becomes an option?

No way to answer that question right now. How many people are actually at risk of death vs just having a bad cold? It's not like we've never had a virus like this before...it's happened off and on over at least the past 10 years. We didn't shut the world down for any of those, and from the sounds of it children aren't included in the risk pool as they were in the past. So why the reaction this time? Maybe there's something we don't know. It seems like an overreach, but I don't pretend to have all of the information.

It's not just about that though...the panic did far more damage to most people than the virus will. Small businesses will close leaving people unemployed. People close to retirement may have lost 20% of their 401k. Restaurants and retail (both low margin business for the most part) are going to get hit hard as well.

Now of all things the area around Philly is closing liquor stores. What's the logic behind that? Cruises are shut down (and I'm actually okay with that given that a lot of passengers are in the at risk category), but people came back from cruises and jumped on airplanes to fly across the country all week long. There's no consistency or logic to any of it...it's like they are just trying to feel good about doing something no matter what the consequences of those actions are. You can't make decisions in a vacuum.

They were prepared on 9/11 to shoot down passenger jets killing people on board. Why? Because harming a few is better than harming a lot. So I can't answer your question, but I can tell you that even though I know you weren't really asking a question, there is an answer to it. How many at risk people are acceptable losses instead of harming the entire country? I don't claim to know the answer, but I am not naive enough to think there isn't one.

On 9/11 everyone on a hijacked plane was almost certainly already dead regardless. You're comparing mass death with 401k declines?

I was really asking you what the number of at risk people would have to be before you deemed drastic measures necessary, after you said 50 million wasn't enough. And it's not just the elderly and the already ill, if hospitals fill up with virus patients there won't be enough space and/or doctors for everyone, so not only is the virus going to kill a lot of people, anyone who has a heart attack or gets in a car accident or whatever risks not getting the quick treatment they need.

Certainly for something that was only lethal to 0.01% of the population a drastic response wouldn't make sense. But it's 100% justified in this case. South Korea has already shown this thing can be beaten with aggressive testing and quarantining, but sadly the US seems to lack the competence for that kind of response. It's going to be bad here as we seem to be following the same track as Italy, but hopefully we can slow it down a bit and not have it be quite as bad as it would be without any drastic measures.

That's one way of looking at it. Good luck to you!

ONE Way?

Keep drinking that snake oil.
It'll cure what ails ya.........

Man, Sir Macca nailed it so many years ago.

Some people never know.

Posted by slashtc on 3/15/2020 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fatguyrd on 3/14/2020 10:33:00 PM (view original):
I know I am pessimistic, but your awful optimistic.

I spent the day watching the 2008 World Series 2 more games to go.

I'm optimistic that common sense will return at some point. There isn't a large pool at risk here based on every single piece of information out there...seniors and those with immune system issues. The rest of us will be fine. Those at risk can protect themselves far better than destroying the economy can. This has all been handled backwards unless there's something they aren't sharing publicly.

maybe if the fedgovt had not destroyed the safeguard system put togetther over 12 years.....had experts advise on china from day one and acted from day one and started getting test kits together and taking kits from WHO the country would have had confidence.....locking down borders with half of the intensity feuling xenophobic actions......the medical people would have had confidence and the economy would have not been in panic.
we started out playing catch up despite incredible warning and time.
now the interest rate is at zero.....we may stop the free falling but not a recession.

as for irrational...do you have parents or grandparents or friends older then 60.
do you know of anyone with compromised immunity.
do you care.

the mortality rate is at least 2 %...i wonder what the mortality rate is for 60 and up...too scary to ask.
the only reason the rates are not higher everywhere is because of the " irrational " behavior.

you could be a carrier of death to someone.
watch your health and stay home if you get symptoms.

i would say that the administration in the past week is finally getting it right and even i have confidence that what needs to done will be done except for closing our borders........it is a 2 headed approach...trump is working with the fed....pence is allowing the med experts to lead and is providing daily feedback.
emphasis on testing is finally happening.
there is a lot less fear in the sunlight then in the dark.

basketball and hockey could do expanded playoff teams and do it in summer or play 10 more games and then playoffs.
is there still boxing ?

one thing i could see happening is to covert unused buildings into hospitals.....
maybe some schools .would be used...places of worship could be converted to temporary hospitals.
lack of hospital space may happen.