Northside Hawk
Well-Known Member
Vegas itself is going to get shut down pretty soon.
***The Official Single Weirdest Game The Hawks Might Not Even Play Game Thread***
- Thread starter Fryowa
- Start date
tksirius
HN's Love Doctor
If Vegas shuts down, that means we're probably in a Will Smith end of humans situation.
One of the MAJOR purposes of slowing transmission, contrary what some of you are trying to argue in this thread, is absolutely to decrease the number of people who eventually get infected by this.
Obviously, yes, delaying actions stretch the bell curve and result in a lengthier period of infection from introduction through die off. But the slower it spreads, the fewer people overall will get infected. It all has to do with the average nodes of infection a person encounters daily. If infections are left to spread fast and wide then at peak penetration a person will come into contact with more possible nodes of infection in a day than if the virus spreads slowly. Statistically, a person who interacts with 5 nodes of infection is more likely to become infected than a person who interacts with 2 nodes of infection. Therefore, delaying spread reduces the average nodes of infection in the general population at any one time which correspondingly reduces the likelihood of transmission AND the total number of people who will eventually be infected.
That's not partisan. That's not rhetoric. That's fucking math. Neither Republicans nor Democrats authored that law. The universe did.
So the right answer is delay, delay, delay by any and all means necessary. The more we delay the shallower the bell curve gets, which is to say...Fewer. Total. Infections.
If you just want to refuse to try to understand the bigger picture, bully for you. If you're actually interested in finding a bit of truth in all this, spur the economy a little, buy a book on probability theory, and gain a little enlightenment while we all try to stay home as much as possible to shrink that bell curve.
Obviously, yes, delaying actions stretch the bell curve and result in a lengthier period of infection from introduction through die off. But the slower it spreads, the fewer people overall will get infected. It all has to do with the average nodes of infection a person encounters daily. If infections are left to spread fast and wide then at peak penetration a person will come into contact with more possible nodes of infection in a day than if the virus spreads slowly. Statistically, a person who interacts with 5 nodes of infection is more likely to become infected than a person who interacts with 2 nodes of infection. Therefore, delaying spread reduces the average nodes of infection in the general population at any one time which correspondingly reduces the likelihood of transmission AND the total number of people who will eventually be infected.
That's not partisan. That's not rhetoric. That's fucking math. Neither Republicans nor Democrats authored that law. The universe did.
So the right answer is delay, delay, delay by any and all means necessary. The more we delay the shallower the bell curve gets, which is to say...Fewer. Total. Infections.
If you just want to refuse to try to understand the bigger picture, bully for you. If you're actually interested in finding a bit of truth in all this, spur the economy a little, buy a book on probability theory, and gain a little enlightenment while we all try to stay home as much as possible to shrink that bell curve.
But why not just shut down the world every single winter to help limit the number of people who die from the flu? Are those people's lives not worth the sacrifice? Isn't it kinda reckless to have the super bowl during peak flu season? It's just a game. We're talking about people's lives here. The only answer is, this virus has a slightly higher death rate (if it really even does). So I guess if a virus comes around that kills slightly less people, then F them, let's watch some sports. But since this one has a slightly higher kill rate (again, if it really does) then the loss is too much to bare so we should shut down the world.
I understand what you're saying, but we both know the answer, and it's not complicated: The Unknown.
Last years flu infected 40 - 43 million people in the U.S. and had less than 65,000 deaths which is about a 0.15% mortality rate. At the time Covid-19 infection in the U.S. became known the most conservative numbers had the mortality rate at around 1% (unadjusted numbers from China at the time were 2+%). If the spread of this virus reached flu-like levels and that mortality rate was even close, you're talking about over 400,000 deaths in a best case scenario.
Everyone understood that the numbers were likely off because of unknown spread and limited datasets, but unlike message boards, where there are no real stakes for being wrong, people who do this shit for a living can't make decisions on what might be the case or what they hope will be the case. The numbers are the numbers until better numbers come available. And even if the mortality rate ultimately falls as low as 0.5%, a flu-like level of infection would STILL be around 200,000 deaths. They did what they did because they had to given the numbers that are currently available.
And don't try to switch gears with the "We're talking about people's lives here." when not many posts ago you were in favor of letting Covid-19 loose and suffering the death tolls that may come with it. Sling your BS somewhere else.
Of course there's a threshold at which we say, "We've done the best we can hope to do and mitigated possible death from the flu to the most reasonable levels possible while still being able to function as a society." You're obviously a pragmatist, so I know you understand the need for such standards.So, again, the simple answer is that the possible threat of Covid-19, given all of the unknowns, exceeded that threshold.
Remember you trying to make sense to a bunch of stupid people on this forum, that is why i hardly every post any moreI understand what you're saying, but we both know the answer, and it's not complicated: The Unknown.
Last years flu infected 40 - 43 million people in the U.S. and had less than 65,000 deaths which is about a 0.15% mortality rate. At the time Covid-19 infection in the U.S. became known the most conservative numbers had the mortality rate at around 1% (unadjusted numbers from China at the time were 2+%). If the spread of this virus reached flu-like levels and that mortality rate was even close, you're talking about over 400,000 deaths in a best case scenario.
Everyone understood that the numbers were likely off because of unknown spread and limited datasets, but unlike message boards, where there are no real stakes for being wrong, people who do this shit for a living can't make decisions on what might be the case or what they hope will be the case. The numbers are the numbers until better numbers come available. And even if the mortality rate ultimately falls as low as 0.5%, a flu-like level of infection would STILL be around 200,000 deaths. They did what they did because they had to given the numbers that are currently available.
And don't try to switch gears with the "We're talking about people's lives here." when not many posts ago you were in favor of letting Covid-19 loose and suffering the death tolls that may come with it. Sling your BS somewhere else.
So, again, the simple answer is that the possible threat of Covid-19, given all of the unknowns, exceeded that threshold.
Most of them are not smart enough to pour rain water out of a boot before putting it on
Ree4
Well-Known Member
Haha yep, I gave up. Can't educate people that can't be educated or have their head buried in the sand.
AIRHAWK
Well-Known Member
Cmon, get the saying right. It is someone isn't smart enough to pour water out of a boot if the directions were on the bottom.
I understand what you're saying, but we both know the answer, and it's not complicated: The Unknown.
Last years flu infected 40 - 43 million people in the U.S. and had less than 65,000 deaths which is about a 0.15% mortality rate. At the time Covid-19 infection in the U.S. became known the most conservative numbers had the mortality rate at around 1% (unadjusted numbers from China at the time were 2+%). If the spread of this virus reached flu-like levels and that mortality rate was even close, you're talking about over 400,000 deaths in a best case scenario.
Everyone understood that the numbers were likely off because of unknown spread and limited datasets, but unlike message boards, where there are no real stakes for being wrong, people who do this shit for a living can't make decisions on what might be the case or what they hope will be the case. The numbers are the numbers until better numbers come available. And even if the mortality rate ultimately falls as low as 0.5%, a flu-like level of infection would STILL be around 200,000 deaths. They did what they did because they had to given the numbers that are currently available.
And don't try to switch gears with the "We're talking about people's lives here." when not many posts ago you were in favor of letting Covid-19 loose and suffering the death tolls that may come with it. Sling your BS somewhere else.
So, again, the simple answer is that the possible threat of Covid-19, given all of the unknowns, exceeded that threshold.
My point is, 65000 lives is a lot of lives to just continue living life like nothing is going on. Then when the numbers go up, it's time to shut down the world. The term you used "exceed that threshold" is kinda what I was looking for. The threshold isn't a black and white line where everyone agrees exactly where it is. I'm not some over the top asshole just because my threshold is slightly different than the next guy's. I've just got more at stake on the other side than some people.
This isn't a problem with educating. Like I said in the post above, it's a problem of different people having different thresholds. The powers that be are ok with living life normal while 65000 people die. You are probably ok with it. You probably don't call yourself an asshole for being ok with it. You probably don't tell yourself you just need to educate yourself more. It's just the norm to he ok with 65000 deaths per year.
My threshold is slightly higher than yours is all. I've already said if it had a 10% kill rate or killed kids like crazy I would be singing a different tune. I've got a family of 6 that I cant support if the economy tanks. That's my priority. I'm not uneducated on this. At least no more uneducated than anyone else. I'll tell you this tho, if this is how the world reacts to every outbreak from now on, we're in big trouble. This isnt a once in a century sickness.
oregonhawkeye
Well-Known Member
It might just be a once in a century sickness. Let’s check back in at the end. I won’t be shocked if there are a million American deaths.
I don't disagree with any of that. It is subjective. And if people argue that "I don't think these types of measures are appropriate unless X, Y and Z are true", I've no issue with that. At all. And I've been around here long enough to know that you're not a gaping chasm of an asshole.
What I do believe is disingenuous is people who claim to not understand why the scope of the reaction has been what it is. Like you, folks may disagree about whether or not it's necessary, about whether or not the numbers justify it. But anyone who has honestly looked at the numbers knows WHY it is happening, whether they agree with it or not.
I think it would be downright stupid to play games in front of packed arenas. But I also think it is downright dumb to not play them in empty arenas. Thanks for the kind words.
Well obviously you are one of the smart farmers who get boots with directions on them
