|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Mar 20, 2020 19:23:26 GMT -5
"The WHO’s director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said: “I have a message for young peopole: you are not invincible. This virus could put you in hospital for weeks or even kill you.”
"Misinformation is impacting on efforts to quell the coronavirus pandemic as even “very well educated” people share false cures, hoaxes and conspiracy theories online, experts warned as recorded cases continued to climb .
The World Health Organization (WHO) has increased its efforts to tackle myths and rumours since it warned in February of a massive “infodemic”, a deluge of information, including false claims that can risk public health."
(Italy and Spain both recorded their biggest increase in deaths yet today; still rising...)
|
|
|
|
Post by catcherman22 on Mar 20, 2020 20:36:56 GMT -5
Just saying...
The average Age of Italy's last reported age numbers (Which was last Friday).. the AVERAGE age of the deceased in Italy is 80.2 and has an average number and they have an average of 2.7 pre existing health conditions. Out of the first 2390 deaths in Italy, how many had no preexisting health conditions? 3! 3 out of 2390 has no underlying health conditions.
It is expected that the death rate in Italy would be large... they have a large percentage of their population over the age of 65 and have underlying health conditions.
I am not saying the WHO's director's message isn't accurate... I'm just stating the facts about Italy's deaths for those who don't look beyond the numbers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 22:36:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Mar 21, 2020 4:01:39 GMT -5
Just saying... The average Age of Italy's last reported age numbers (Which was last Friday).. the AVERAGE age of the deceased in Italy is 80.2 and has an average number and they have an average of 2.7 pre existing health conditions. Out of the first 2390 deaths in Italy, how many had no preexisting health conditions? 3! 3 out of 2390 has no underlying health conditions. It is expected that the death rate in Italy would be large... they have a large percentage of their population over the age of 65 and have underlying health conditions. I am not saying the WHO's director's message isn't accurate... I'm just stating the facts about Italy's deaths for those who don't look beyond the numbers. Those numbers are interesting, thanks. Don't really see how it changes the things the other side of the argument to you have been saying? As my quote said, young people could spend weeks in hospital, and that's no picnic; they could be taking up a bed, or could give it to a person with a pre existing condition and kill them. A person with a pre existing condition is still someone's father or grand father? There seems to be an attitude of "they would have died of flu anyway," and there is absolutely zero proof of that. The majority of these will be EXTRA deaths to the flu, so I can't understand why we wouldn't be doing anything in our powers to stop them. |
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Mar 21, 2020 4:28:35 GMT -5
"The drastic measures taken in the UK to tackle coronavirus have been justified because of the need to save lives.
Modelling by Imperial College London - used to inform government - suggests 500,000 could die if we do nothing.
Even the government's previous strategy to slow the spread was likely to lead to 250,000 deaths, the research showed.
The warnings prompted ministers to announce on Monday the most draconian crackdown on freedom in peacetime with the public told not to go to pubs, clubs or theatres, and to work from home if possible.
The move has hit the economy, putting jobs at risk and prompting schools to be closed and exams cancelled.
No other option - experts
Professor Neil Ferguson, one of the lead academics involved in the modelling, told the BBC's Today Programme this week there was "no option" if 250,000 lives were not to be risked.
Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, said in an appearance before the Health Select Committee, that the hope was to keep the death toll below 20,000 by suppressing the virus.
That would still be worse than those killed by flu, he said, giving a number of 8,000 per year.
He said limiting deaths to 20,000 would be "horrible" but still represented a "good outcome" given where we are."
(The 500,000 figure is obviously just a start point from their modelling, that would never happen. 250k though could have happened under certain conditions and policies, eg no lockdowns; and 20k is still more than double that which flu causes, in far less time, and quite clearly many extra deaths we wouldn't have had without this disease. That's what we're trying to prevent as much as possible with lockdowns.)
|
|
|
|
Post by boffo on Mar 21, 2020 9:04:53 GMT -5
"The drastic measures taken in the UK to tackle coronavirus have been justified because of the need to save lives. Modelling by Imperial College London - used to inform government - suggests 500,000 could die if we do nothing. Even the government's previous strategy to slow the spread was likely to lead to 250,000 deaths, the research showed. The warnings prompted ministers to announce on Monday the most draconian crackdown on freedom in peacetime with the public told not to go to pubs, clubs or theatres, and to work from home if possible. The move has hit the economy, putting jobs at risk and prompting schools to be closed and exams cancelled. No other option - experts Professor Neil Ferguson, one of the lead academics involved in the modelling, told the BBC's Today Programme this week there was "no option" if 250,000 lives were not to be risked. Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, said in an appearance before the Health Select Committee, that the hope was to keep the death toll below 20,000 by suppressing the virus. That would still be worse than those killed by flu, he said, giving a number of 8,000 per year. He said limiting deaths to 20,000 would be "horrible" but still represented a "good outcome" given where we are." (The 500,000 figure is obviously just a start point from their modelling, that would never happen. 250k though could have happened under certain conditions and policies, eg no lockdowns; and 20k is still more than double that which flu causes, in far less time, and quite clearly many extra deaths we wouldn't have had without this disease. That's what we're trying to prevent as much as possible with lockdowns.) But everything I know about British pandemic response is that you go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all this to blow over. Now that the pubs are closed do you have some sort of backup plan? |
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Mar 21, 2020 9:15:18 GMT -5
"The drastic measures taken in the UK to tackle coronavirus have been justified because of the need to save lives. Modelling by Imperial College London - used to inform government - suggests 500,000 could die if we do nothing. Even the government's previous strategy to slow the spread was likely to lead to 250,000 deaths, the research showed. The warnings prompted ministers to announce on Monday the most draconian crackdown on freedom in peacetime with the public told not to go to pubs, clubs or theatres, and to work from home if possible. The move has hit the economy, putting jobs at risk and prompting schools to be closed and exams cancelled. No other option - experts Professor Neil Ferguson, one of the lead academics involved in the modelling, told the BBC's Today Programme this week there was "no option" if 250,000 lives were not to be risked. Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, said in an appearance before the Health Select Committee, that the hope was to keep the death toll below 20,000 by suppressing the virus. That would still be worse than those killed by flu, he said, giving a number of 8,000 per year. He said limiting deaths to 20,000 would be "horrible" but still represented a "good outcome" given where we are." (The 500,000 figure is obviously just a start point from their modelling, that would never happen. 250k though could have happened under certain conditions and policies, eg no lockdowns; and 20k is still more than double that which flu causes, in far less time, and quite clearly many extra deaths we wouldn't have had without this disease. That's what we're trying to prevent as much as possible with lockdowns.) But everything I know about British pandemic response is that you go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all this to blow over. Now that the pubs are closed do you have some sort of backup plan? Haha! I wouldn't be seen dead in the Winchester! Duke of Wellington is my local. (Yes, really...) I think our plan is to trust Boris, and if he's struggling, ask orange Don for help, so I'm hopeful... |
|
|
|
Post by rob4590 on Mar 21, 2020 9:38:54 GMT -5
But everything I know about British pandemic response is that you go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for all this to blow over. Now that the pubs are closed do you have some sort of backup plan?
I believe the correct answer is to go to Lizzie's (which was plan A originally)
(if my memory of the film is correct  ) |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Mar 21, 2020 10:31:37 GMT -5
Totally impressed with Andrew Cuomo's leadership through this. More Presidential than the President. He is taking responsibility for the safety of New Yorkers. He understands the situation and the challenges. He has been straight with the people, no lies. No bullsht.
|
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Mar 21, 2020 10:36:47 GMT -5
I'm also starting to wonder why Russia isn't having much of a problem, especially being a border country to China.
I'm not going to go conspiracy theorist on it but it is a curiousity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2020 10:54:49 GMT -5
Wife said half of ICU is positive for CV19 and rule outs. I'm guessing rule outs meaning waiting for testing. Not sure.
End of the day all we are doing is slowing it down. Which helps the healthcare industry not get overwhelmed. Which is a good thing and will save life's. But unfortunately eventually most people will be exposed to it. Just like the flu.
As I said before we should quarantine the high risk people and let it run its course on the healthy. You can only lock people down for so long before they start going nuts. Not to mention the economic impact that a lot of people will not recover from for sometime.
I believe in time we will find out how much China knew and covered up. Which will lead to consequences and hopefully America finally cuts the cord with them and starts manufacturing as much as possible on it's own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2020 11:04:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Mar 21, 2020 11:05:41 GMT -5
Wife said half of ICU is positive for CV19 and rule outs. I'm guessing rule outs meaning waiting for testing. Not sure. End of the day all we are doing is slowing it down. Which helps the healthcare industry not get overwhelmed. Which is a good thing and will save life's. But unfortunately eventually most people will be exposed to it. Just like the flu. As I said before we should quarantine the high risk people and let it run its course on the healthy. You can only lock people down for so long before they start going nuts. Not to mention the economic impact that a lot of people will not recover from for sometime. I believe in time we will find out how much China knew and covered up. Which will lead to consequences and hopefully America finally cuts the cord with them and starts manufacturing as much as possible on it's own. The slow down is the point behind flattening the curve. That's exactly what is needed so the load is easier for healthcare facilities to handle. Social distancing is working in areas that it is actually being done. I can assure you that most of us who are high risk are self-quarantined. I've only gone out twice in the last two weeks and that was to get some supplies (and walking my dog). The people we need to worry about are the ones who are not taking ti seriously. They are the carriers. Did you see the video of NBA player Gobert a few weeks ago when he said he wasn't concerned about it and then touched all of the reporter mics before leaving the press conference? He ended up testing positive. His self-guilt afterwards was appreciated but it wouldn't have saved anyone he could have infected. He put people at risk through his ignorance. That's the mentality that scares me the most. Same as those college kids on spring break. I couldn't care less about pointing fingers at China right now. What is Russia hiding too? As a country, we knew about the virus back in December. Our leadership ignored it and called it a hoax. If you want to point fingers you can start there. But that's for another time and place. |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Mar 21, 2020 11:07:47 GMT -5
Sorry, anything Fox News or even more, Fox Business and their crazy ass Lou Dobbs has to say about anything is worthless. I refuse to even look at it. I'll wait for a real medical news outlet that isn't run by the lying White House to inform us. |
|
|
|
Post by LKeet6 on Mar 21, 2020 11:23:28 GMT -5
Be very careful not to follow the advice of people who say "I think...."
A lot of damage is being done, if only in terms of the amount of worry and behaviour of people to each other, if not physical damage, by loads of misinformation and opinions being spread about.
Follow the advice of doctors and scientists, they have the most knowledge and the most experience.
|
|
)
