Are you personally worried about getting the Coronavirus?

Are you personally worried about catching the Coronavirus?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 41.0%
  • No

    Votes: 59 59.0%

  • Total voters
    100
Status
Not open for further replies.
Name one part of my post, besides the last sentence, that is an opinion. Let alone cherry picked.

You aren't as bad as TK, but you keep beating a drum. What is the drum message you are beating? We are stupid? Our leaders are stupid? Something dark is going on? What is it?
 
Where were you and who were you in contact with way back in late January or early Feb to maybe contract covid-19? it was barely in the US we believe at that time. Just curious. If you were in contact with someone who had been travelling from the coasts or from overseas or could contract trace there way back to a traveller.

I travel 7 midwestern states. I’m in contact with many people and stay in many different hotels.
 
Interesting. Do you think this should be a county decision instead of a state decision? And yes, I realize Iowa has done things a bit differently than Illinois and Wisconsin. I live in Linn County which has the highest number of cases in Iowa so far (255). I would assume they would not reopen as soon as your area - or maybe that is not a good assumption? :)

The problem with county by county is that if I live in a county butting up to Linn county I can drive around and go to Linn county and maybe get the virus or vice versa as some Linn resident wants to shop or eat at a place in my county and brings the virus to my county. Many counties have tried to shut down and had state officials override their choice.
 
Have you heard of actual evidence that people who have the virus are all totally immune to a second illness? I heard yesterday they are using the term 'may give immunity after being sick'. I dont know if the researchers have had time to follow up infected people to see if a secondary or tertiary human immune response will be basically immunity or a worse reaction leading to bad illness.
There are medical people out there supporting herd immunity theories.

Once again, social distancing was an important component on the front end of this. Now experts are making other discoveries, as we knew they would as they had a chance to get their heads around this, and these will eventually supplement social distancing and eventually overtake it.
 
You aren't as bad as TK, but you keep beating a drum. What is the drum message you are beating? We are stupid? Our leaders are stupid? Something dark is going on? What is it?
I have ideas but I will save those for PM. I'm not going down those rabbit holes on this forum.
 
Indeed ... tough decisions ahead. That's why I think it needed to be basically a possible overreaction first, and then come back and revisit. Early decisions need to be swift and overreaching to make the point and not let individual entities (cities, counties, etc.) decide too late.

.

Reporting is starting to show that some republican lawmakers, election pundits, leaders finally convinced Trump that electorally it was better for him to finally over-react to the pandemic and quit downplaying it entirely.

The message was and is for any leader in a situation like this that over reacting and having less deaths is better than no reaction and a lot of deaths while the short term problems of economy and jobs can be blamed on the virus and then fixed.
 
My answer: who’s to say that it hasn’t already affected way more?

Another thing I’m very interested in how is it that California numbers are not higher. Orange County California had first KNOWN case in January and San Francisco Jan 31st. California flys direct flights [in December and January], from San Francisco and LAX to Wuhan, ground zero of the outbreak, you'd be naive not to think the California population wasn't exposed.
In Iowa, they are only testing people who have reason to think they have it and still 90% are coming back negative. I am also hoping that way more people have it than they think. It would be the best way to get back to normal faster. But that number I just posted leads me to believe it's highly unlikely that's the case. If only 10% of sick people have it, how can more than 10% of everyone have it?
 
That class of antibiotic has anti-inflammatory effects, and considering that the health issues seem to be secondary to a massive inflammatory response in the lungs, perhaps that explains the effect?

That massive immune system inflammatory response is cytokine storm.
 
Reporting is starting to show that some republican lawmakers, election pundits, leaders finally convinced Trump that electorally it was better for him to finally over-react to the pandemic and quit downplaying it entirely.

The message was and is for any leader in a situation like this that over reacting and having less deaths is better than no reaction and a lot of deaths while the short term problems of economy and jobs can be blamed on the virus and then fixed.
It would be really bad news for thos country and the world if it ends up being true that this is no big deal. Can you imagine how delayed our reaction would be if another pandemic hits? Both politically wanting to do something about it (it would be political suicide to be wrong again) and citizens actually listening to politicians. If a really bad virus hits, 95% of the population would say "yes right, here we go again).
 
My wife works for Mayo Clinic and has access to internal Covid stuff. She showed me a chart that indicates there was a Covid death back in December. So this thing has been around far earlier than March. Probably more like 4-5 months. If course all the lies out there would make everyone believe otherwise.
Is there anyway you can post that chart?
 
They are 11th, worldwide, in deaths per million of population (88). The US is 15th (57).

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

I have to revise what I just posted earlier, Norway is actually at 1/4 of Sweden's number, not half (21 deaths per million).

For the US, New York has 400 deaths per million population, and then 4 other states are above Sweden's rate: New Jersey (218), Michigan (162), Louisianna (129), and Connecticut (125). If you removed New York/New Jersey, the US would probably have a rate more on par with Norway.

So in terms of how many people are dying now, Sweden is not doing great. But the total number of deaths does not look that different from an extreme flu season, and they have not totally disrupted their lives. And will they progress toward herd immunity faster? Is there such a thing as herd immunity with COVID (we presume there will be, but don't know for sure)?

This thing is not clear-cut: National Review states that the Sweden experiment proves that harsh lockdown is not necessary, and Time states that the Sweden experiment is going to backfire and prove that the lockdown is necessary. How about we keep an open mind, keep our eyes on the situation, and try to learn what we can instead of immediately politicizing every tiny scrap of data?
If Seeden ends up being no worse off than anywhere else, my question is how? That would either mean social distancing just plain doesn't work, or it means there has to be another reason. If its social distancing, how is it possible that it doesn't work? It would have to be reexamined completely. If it's another reason, what is it? They had better figure out what that reason is and it better make sense to the public. Otherwise everyone will point to Sweden next time something hits and say screw social distancing.

I'm curious to hear thoughts from people on here who are pointing to Sweden saying what we are doing is stupid. Do you guys think social distancing doesn't work? If so, why do you think it doesn't work?
 
In Iowa, they are only testing people who have reason to think they have it and still 90% are coming back negative. I am also hoping that way more people have it than they think. It would be the best way to get back to normal faster. But that number I just posted leads me to believe it's highly unlikely that's the case. If only 10% of sick people have it, how can more than 10% of everyone have it?

Remember most people who have it show no symptoms or very slight symptoms like a slight temp and maybe a short duration cough so they would not get tested. But that is how a higher percentage of people probably have had it.
 
In Iowa, they are only testing people who have reason to think they have it and still 90% are coming back negative. I am also hoping that way more people have it than they think. It would be the best way to get back to normal faster. But that number I just posted leads me to believe it's highly unlikely that's the case. If only 10% of sick people have it, how can more than 10% of everyone have it?

Also Remember a Test to see if you have it now won’t show if you ever had it..
 
Remember most people who have it show no symptoms or very slight symptoms like a slight temp and maybe a short duration cough so they would not get tested. But that is how a higher percentage of people probably have had it.

Correct, if a huge percentage of the population did in fact have it, then a higher portion of people who were actually sick would test positive. I don't think its possible for the total amount of people who have it be higher than the percentage who have it that got tested. If 50% of the population have it, then at least 50% of people who get tested would have it too.
 
Once that Antibody test Is available you just watch how many people will have already had it!

I’m convinced I’ve already had it. I could be wrong, but it’s just my hunch. I’ve had flu’s before and what hit me night of Feb 5th was different than anything I’ve ever had before. How quickly it affected my lungs was crazy, fever, cough, body aches, fatigue and the night sweats so bad it literally soaked my bed. I didn’t leave my bedroom for 4 days, the wife slept in spare bedroom. My wife got it with different symptoms on the 5th day, fever, body aches and cough and pink eye. It didn’t affect her lungs like it did mine. The fatigue lasted long time it took us both solid 4 to 5 weeks to feel somewhat normal.

Check symptoms of RSV or Respiratory Syncytial Virus. Lot's of young kids get it. I have probably had it. Our son had it as an infant 1 year old and was very sick. Not saying you had this but it is out there and seasonal about every year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top