When is it time to panic

captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

...But trust me, simply idle hands would rather invest the time and effort into improving one's home and community. People want to have and take pride in where they are from, what they've persevered and what they've created.... 

I am curious.... what color is the sky in your world?   

But seriously, there are certainly a lot of people like that, but there are also a number of "I don't give a S&#t about anyone but me" types, and it doesn't take many of those to pull down what the others have done or try to do.  Just turn on your TV today and observe.

In reply to aircooled :

See I see those who only get a Berkeley about themselves as the ones that'll kneel on another man's throat. As even a man who only cares about himself wants a nice comfortable and secure place to rest their head at night. 

Maybe that's because the sky in my world is more than one color though, if one were to come from a location where the sky is a single color, they may not get that perspective. 

Ah yes, thinly veiled racism jab, nice.  And yes, there are a-holes in every crowd, exactly what I am talking about, so it seems to be you that are blind to those shades.

The people you are talking about are in the streets with signs, The vast majority certainly.

The ones I am talking about are breaking into businesses and attacking people, destroying what the other are trying to do.  It's a small number, but with great power to destroy what others have built.

captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to aircooled :

See I see those who only get a Berkeley about themselves as the ones that'll kneel on another man's throat. As even a man who only cares about himself wants a nice comfortable and secure place to rest their head at night. 

Maybe that's because the sky in my world is more than one color though, if one were to come from a location where the sky is a single color, they may not get that perspective. 

am not a subtle person, and don’t understand thinly veiled anything. I actually have no clue at guessing what you said here... it sounds like you got angry enough to not know how to say anything, but that’s just from an outsider. 

Ive lived in about 13 different states while on a contract, and the sky has been blue in every single one of them

I would not have asked the way aircooled did; but I do feel your statement thatMOST folks want to improve where they live is NOT a true statement in modern United States. Sad, but that is what rioters have made me think. I personally don’t believe that race has anything to do with that, but the reason (I believe) would require a inappropriate political talk. 

So.  How 'bout that pandemic?

Found an article in the feed that the little man that lives inside my phone suggested to me that said a couple doctors in Italy were saying that they thought the virus seemed to be weakening: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-virus-idUSKBN2370OQ

Not that two doctors quoted by the news equals an expert or an actual study, but it did make me realize that that other than this, I can't recall having heard about Italy in the news in a long while.  Hopefully no news is good news and things have at least stabalized there?   I know it was looking pretty grim for quite a while.

wae (Forum Supporter) said:

So.  How 'bout that pandemic?

Found an article in the feed that the little man that lives inside my phone suggested to me that said a couple doctors in Italy were saying that they thought the virus seemed to be weakening: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-virus-idUSKBN2370OQ

Not that two doctors quoted by the news equals an expert or an actual study, but it did make me realize that that other than this, I can't recall having heard about Italy in the news in a long while.  Hopefully no news is good news and things have at least stabalized there?   I know it was looking pretty grim for quite a while.

That's an interesting article, I hope it shows to be correct!

I think some of you need to step away from the computer, or at least this thread, for a few days. Go for a jog, a drive, smoke a joint, do something.

captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

This is the first of the three that I'm not "I'd bet lots of money" on confident, but I'm saying a better than 65% chance, that we don't see an election in November between the two presumed candidates. 

Either one of them won't be around come November, or forces will postpone or delay the election process, sparking additional violence in the process. 

I'm not sure, but I can see a possibility that Joe or Don gets ousted by their own parties.  It's quite likely given the current state of the country (Don) and the current mental state of Joe. 

There will be an election in November.  My chief worry is that violence will escalate until then and possibly until after the inauguration.

I concluded a few weeks ago that a lot of this is being overblown so that one guy can blame the other guy.  That's one of the few logical explanations once you start to weight all the evidence, medical papers and data.  If I can blame you for all of this, then I improve my chances of winning an election.  Sadly this terrible mentality is a two way street with both sides to blame. 

Now we the people get to suffer because of it in many ways never foreseen by anyone.  The impact of all of this is going to last a long time, and could very well be the end of our Republic.  There is still a slight chance it serves as a wakeup call and saves and eventually strengthens our Republic, but that outcome is more difficult, hence less likely. 

We are experiencing the fall of Rome first hand. 

captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

This is the first of the three that I'm not "I'd bet lots of money" on confident, but I'm saying a better than 65% chance, that we don't see an election in November between the two presumed candidates. 

Either one of them won't be around come November, or forces will postpone or delay the election process, sparking additional violence in the process. 

People make this prediction at every single election that I have watched (starting with Clinton, I'm not that old). It's always garbage.

tuna55 (Forum Supporter) said:

captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:

This is the first of the three that I'm not "I'd bet lots of money" on confident, but I'm saying a better than 65% chance, that we don't see an election in November between the two presumed candidates. 

Either one of them won't be around come November, or forces will postpone or delay the election process, sparking additional violence in the process. 

People make this prediction at every single election that I have watched (starting with Clinton, I'm not that old). It's always garbage.

Ken White* spoke about this in his last podcast.

Basically it is impossible to unilaterally delay or cancel the election. To do so would require congressional approval which is unlikely to happen. Especially with the relaxing of mail-in eligibility rules.

*For those of you who don't know Ken White runs Popehat.com and is a noted constitutional lawyer who specifically focuses on 1st amendment cases

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Steve, have you read the COVID Updates thread? 

I have.  I find it overwhelmingly one-sided.  It fits a narrative.

Mtn, I really respect you and all the effort you have put in.  But your responses are completely contrarian to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you believe in, even though your in-depth attempts at analyzing data generally end with the (accurate) recognition that "we don't know yet".  You are correct.

The problem with overly relying on the data is that it is only available after something has happened.  Things are unfolding, and decisions need to be made on the fly.  If you are walking into a cross-fire, you're gonna have to make decisions without being able to analyze the statistics of the death toll.  The bottom line is that we HAVE to make decisions, even though we don't know yet.

I would be deeply interested in reading anything you may be able to put the same effort into that explored the damages caused by the economic impact.  Mental health.  Physical health.  Suicide rates.  Strength or weakness of the economic safety net.  Projected long term outcome.  This is the side of the issue you don't put much into.

I respect your data and your efforts, but it is not what I am seeing in the real world.

A pandemic has happened.  Things are bad.  Decisions cannot be made in a vacuum without information from all facets that are impacted.  There are things we DO know, and cannot ignore.  And there are things we will not know until its all over.

Thank you.

You say it fits a narrative. What narrative? I disagree. He provides facts. He states many times that there is no balance point, no right decisions, and that the answers are not the same for every state.  I don’t really care to argue this one though. You have your opinion of it. I have mine.

I also think you’re reading into my posts something that isn’t there. Here are my posts from the past 15 days:

• I compare the virus to a Tornado vs Hurricane when explaining why if it was deadlier, we’d be in better shape
• PCR Testing is 67% accurate on best day, can’t throw out errors
• If it was deadlier, it wouldn’t spread and we wouldn’t be arguing
• Not really. The PCR tests are 67% accurate on their best day. You could theoretically, 3 weeks after infection, test the same person 7 days in a row and only 1 of those 7 tests would be positive. The only thing that you should really take away from it is that there is the possibility that you're contagious longer than expected, but probably much less contagious than you would have been at the height of the infection (wear a mask)
• Asking for clarification on ProDarwin post
• Don’t go looking for Zebras (Nightclub in Seoul)
• We’re seeing moonshots from Pharma (IanF and I disagreed on something not related to COVID, but a small disagreement that doesn’t matter)
• Antivaxxers are bad
• What Mike thinks his summer will look like
• Patio worthy post, but it basically says that we’re in a no win situation, damned if we do, damned if we don’t
• Wear a mask, dudes
• Eating at home>Eating outside in public, socially distanced>Eating inside a restaurant, socially distanced
• I'm not saying stay at home OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF YOU ORDER THE ONION RINGS. (And I know that isn't what you're implying I said, but I also did not say you can only eat out if it isn't raining, which is what you seem to think I said).
• Need to look at 7 day averages
• Commented that I look forward to information coming from states opening up – “I would not be there myself, just because of my position in life (infant child, previously my daughter passed away due to a virus, immunosuppressed MIL, older parents, etc.), but if I was in college or single I'd be out there living it up for sure. Probably traveling a lot (with a mask). Hopefully we don't see much of a spike.”
• Bobzilla will kill himself in the rain on RS4’s (Bob, don’t do this – go buy a Ridgeline, they’re safe)
• We should be watching Hospitalizations
• % Of tests that are positive are not a good metric
• Hamster Study, which would indicate that wearing a mask helps both those wearing it and those not
• Please wear a mask
• Nursing Homes that I’m familiar with in terms of HVAC setup
• Asking for Clarification on what Paul means when he’s “generally choosing not to wear a mask”
• If you have positive antibodies, I’m of the opinion that you don’t need a mask (but social pressure would make me wear one)
• I thanked Paul for wearing one when he’s in closer proximity to people
• More conversation about masks, and how they’re effective
• ABC article, tracking what is happening in opening states. I state that we need to look at everything with a 2 week delay to draw conclusions
• Stating that Paul’s Georgia data is 15 days old, Georgia cases are increasing
• Agree with STM317 that Georgia’s increasing cases are less concerning because of the increase in testing, and we should be looking at hospitalizations (Incidentally, 106 new hospitalizations in 2 days from this one… Not sure if that means anything, as I haven’t been able to find backdated data)

I don’t see anything in there arguing that we shouldn’t open up. In fact, I don’t see anything controversial there… Except wear masks, which I’m kind of astounded that we’re finding controversial. Thanks to the CDC for that, I guess?

Ultimately, like you say, “A pandemic has happened is happening.  Things are bad.  Decisions cannot be made in a vacuum without information from all facets that are impacted.  There are things we DO know, and cannot ignore.  And there are things we will not know until its all over.” One of the things that we DO know is wearing a mask prevents the spread, is cheap, and is easy to implement. So why wouldn’t we encourage wearing masks?

Ok, you asked for a look at what it is doing to the economy. Full disclosure, I minored in Economics in college, was close to a major in it (I majored in Math). I think I had four 300 level Econ classes. I think – college was many beers ago at this point. In college, I think I would have looked at this analysis below and laughed and thrown it away. It is way too simplified, way too problematic, the input data is E36 M3ty. I am not going to do a research project on this. I don’t have the resources to do so.

Our question that we need to ask is: Were the various “lockdown” measures worth it? To do this, we need to do the impossible: Place a value on a human life. I’m not going to try to do that – but, there are a few different numbers already out there:

• Dialysis Standard, $50k a year (Annual Estimate)
• Quality of Life standard (updated Dailysis Standard), $129,000 a year (Annual Estimate)
• EPA 2010 Estimate, $115,776 (9.1M, divided by 78.6, average age of death – non Covid)
• FDA 2010 Estimate, $100,509 (7.9M, divided by 78.6, average age of death – non Covid)
• DoT, 2014, $117,048 (9.2M, divided by 78.6, average age of death – non Covid)
• DoT, 2016, $122,137 (9.6M, divided by 78.6, average age of death – non Covid)

I’ll use the Dialysis standard as my low bar, and QoL as my high bar.

What is the average age of a Covid death in the US? Surprisingly, I was not able to find this specifically. If someone is able to, please, provide a figure to me.

• I’m using 75.8 for the average age of COVID Death.
•  I come to this number in an imprecise manner – Using https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku, I take the mean age for each group (So for deaths aged 15-24, I used 19.5), and I multiply by the percentage of total deaths for that age group.
• Age 25-34 represents 542 deaths out of a total of 81,372 in the US (Remember, 5/23 data). So I multiply (29.5)*(542/81,372)=.1965. I do this for all ages (85+ uses 89.5), and add them together. THIS IS AN IMPERFECT METHOD. There are a lot of issues with this, but again, I’m not doing a research project here.
• This means that we are losing an average of 2.8 years per life due to Covid.
• There are other estimates on this. WSJ, behind a paywall, cites a study that says that COVID kills people an average of a Decade before their time. We will also use 10 years for the calculation to compare.

How much does the average COVID Death cost in opportunity cost?

• Using my number of 2.8 years lost (which, incidentally, I think is low), each death costs between $141,726, and $365,654.
• Using WSJ estimate of 10 years (and I can’t find this study, because I didn’t look, shame on me), the figure is between $500k and $1.29M.

Ok… Well, how many deaths have we prevented by our measures? This projection from NPR (April 21) uses 302,000 as a best guess of new deaths with no further social distancing, and extremes of 94k and 1.81M: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/21/839456638/what-happens-if-u-s-reopens-too-fast-federal-documents-show-coronavirus-projecti.

• Using that best guess of 302,000, we’re at $42.8B on the low end, $110.4B on the high end using my 2.8 Years lost. Using 10 years, it is $151B to $389.6B.
• Using the low extreme of 94,000 additional deaths, we’re at $13.3B to $34.4B, and $47B to $121.3B
• Using the high extreme of 1.81M additional deaths, we’re at $256B to $662.2B, and $905.5B to $2.3 Trillion… That is over 10% of our GDP. I’d say all of these actions are definitely worth it in that case.
• This was from an article on 4/21, so after social distancing was in place, after we’d figured out some plans of attack, and about 3 weeks after CDC started recommending that we wear masks. So I’d assume this was baked into their calculations.

I’m not happy with my input data here in terms of projected deaths. It doesn’t answer the question of “Were the various measures worth it”. What we need are projections (which we will never be able to prove), if we hadn’t done anything. So I tried to come up with my own numbers – there are probably better numbers to use, but I wanted to take my SWAG at it. Using this website: https://covid19-projections.com/#view-projections, which is the one I’ve found to be most accurate, our R-naught for reproduction on March 1 was 2.2, and declining steadily from there with social distancing, etc.

• That means that every person infects 2.2 other people.
• I used 14 days for the time it took to get those 2.2.
• I used a mortality rate of 0.4%, based on latest CDC numbers. This may be high. It may be low.
• On March 1, we had 89,634 cases.

Using that 2.2 R-naught, and the 14 day period, by June 7 we’d have had 22.3M cases, and 89,431 deaths. By July 19, we’d have had 238M cases and 952k deaths. Going beyond that is pointless, as we’d be past the US population. THIS IS BAD MATH. For one thing, we’re already at 100k deaths. Using this projection, as mentioned above, we’d be at 89k deaths. Most likely, the death rate has been significantly decreased as we have figured out how to deal with it somewhat, and as we opened up ICU units to allow people to actually be treated. Nonetheless, plugging my 952k deaths in, our economic cost just in lives lost is $134.9B to $1.23T.

To address some other things… You mention physical health. Can’t quantify this – frankly don’t know how. Mine has definitely taken a step back. But I view this as temporary.

As to the mental health aspects of it… Well, I think that COVID is exposing the gigantic gaping hole in the US healthcare system that is mental health. Hopefully this actually ends up improving it. Germany has seen a decrease in suicide rates. I haven’t been able to come up with US numbers. I know we didn’t really see a spike in suicide after 2008. This is on an order of magnitude larger than 2008, so time will tell. A hard one to put blame on here. Suicide is eminently preventable, but mental healthcare in this country is atrocious.

CBS says it could lead to 75,000 deaths: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-deaths-suicides-drugs-alcohol-pandemic-75000/. If we use this number on my above calculations – and I’m doing this by subtracting 75k deaths from the deaths I was using in my calculations, using the understanding that we’re “saving” money by preventing people from dying, but this is causing people to die, the economic costs varies from $2.7M (totally not worth it) to $2.24T (totally worth it).

This doesn’t really tell us anything, because I do not have good data to throw in there. It is quite obvious that, had we taken this seriously in February, we would be in a MUCH better position now – both in terms of the economy and lives saved, as well as mental health. If I go any further, I’ll flounder.

And on that, we could have a research paper on what a life is worth, but I think I undershot it using both the 2.3 year and 10 year. No analysis on that, just saying an "I feel" statement. I feel that my dad would die if he had it. I feel he will live another 20-30 years without it. 

Also, "What I'm seeing in the real world" implies that your world is real, and no one elses is. It is an anecdote. We basically have to throw it out, it is useless in decision making for more than a few people.

EDIT: What I meant with the "real world" comment was that, on its own, it shouldn't be used to make broad decisions. It definitely should be used to make decisions for you and your family. But not for South Carolina or Georgia (or wherever you live now).

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Steve, have you read the COVID Updates thread? 

I have.  I find it overwhelmingly one-sided.  It fits a narrative....

Not to speak for him, but I suspect a more reasonable way of saying that is "it only tells one part of the story"

They are superb medical related updates, nothing wrong with them, but for an overall view of the situation, they do not have information on economic and psychological effects (not what they are for obviously).  Getting accurate information on the second two can obviously be difficult.

aircooled said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Steve, have you read the COVID Updates thread? 

I have.  I find it overwhelmingly one-sided.  It fits a narrative....

 

 

Not to speak for him, but I suspect a more reasonable way of saying that is "it only tells one part of the story"

They are superb medical related updates, nothing wrong with them, but for an overall view of the situation, they do not have information on economic and psychological effects (not what they are for obviously).  Getting accurate information on the second two can obviously be difficult.

 

Ok, but still not seeing how that fits a narrative. 

EDIT: And what I mean by that is, is it omitting medical data that would, presumably, fit the other narrative? It shouldn't be any narrative. 

The Professors posts get political, for sure, I could see the argument for his... but they're still just facts, and I'm not sure that he's omitting anything.

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

aircooled said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Steve, have you read the COVID Updates thread? 

I have.  I find it overwhelmingly one-sided.  It fits a narrative....

 

 

 

 

Not to speak for him, but I suspect a more reasonable way of saying that is "it only tells one part of the story"

They are superb medical related updates, nothing wrong with them, but for an overall view of the situation, they do not have information on economic and psychological effects (not what they are for obviously).  Getting accurate information on the second two can obviously be difficult.

 

Ok, but still not seeing how that fits a narrative. 

EDIT: And what I mean by that is, is it omitting medical data that would, presumably, fit the other narrative? It shouldn't be any narrative. 

 

The Professors posts get political, for sure, I could see the argument for his... but they're still just facts, and I'm not sure that he's omitting anything.

I stopped reading when I spotted the one headline which I knew not to be real. The data was neat, but it wasn't just data.

tuna55 (Forum Supporter) said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

aircooled said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Steve, have you read the COVID Updates thread? 

I have.  I find it overwhelmingly one-sided.  It fits a narrative....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to speak for him, but I suspect a more reasonable way of saying that is "it only tells one part of the story"

They are superb medical related updates, nothing wrong with them, but for an overall view of the situation, they do not have information on economic and psychological effects (not what they are for obviously).  Getting accurate information on the second two can obviously be difficult.

 

Ok, but still not seeing how that fits a narrative. 

EDIT: And what I mean by that is, is it omitting medical data that would, presumably, fit the other narrative? It shouldn't be any narrative. 

 

The Professors posts get political, for sure, I could see the argument for his... but they're still just facts, and I'm not sure that he's omitting anything.

I stopped reading when I spotted the one headline which I knew not to be real. The data was neat, but it wasn't just data.

 

 

Ok, this is something that bothers me. Not just here, but everywhere, any media. Headlines are often incorrect. This was a case. It should not dismiss everything else. This is why respectable places (including him, if you call it out) will fix it, retracted it. He's mentioned many times, in comments on facebook, where he has changed data when he found out it was incorrect. 

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Ok, but still not seeing how that fits a narrative. 

EDIT: And what I mean by that is, is it omitting medical data that would, presumably, fit the other narrative? It shouldn't be any narrative. 

The Professors posts get political, for sure, I could see the argument for his... but they're still just facts, and I'm not sure that he's omitting anything.

If your narrative is:  "Only medical related information is important"?

Not a narrative in the specifics of what he is talking on, just an overall "what is the best way to deal with this" kind of way.

(OK, I cannot really speak for him, but that seems like a reasonable explanation)

aircooled said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Ok, but still not seeing how that fits a narrative. 

EDIT: And what I mean by that is, is it omitting medical data that would, presumably, fit the other narrative? It shouldn't be any narrative. 

The Professors posts get political, for sure, I could see the argument for his... but they're still just facts, and I'm not sure that he's omitting anything.

If your narrative is:  "Only medical related information is important"?

Not a narrative in the specifics of what he is talking on, just an overall "what is the best way to deal with this" kind of way.

(OK, I cannot really speak for him, but that seems like a reasonable explanation)

 

Good explanation. Thanks

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

tuna55 (Forum Supporter) said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

aircooled said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

SVreX (Forum Supporter) said:

mtn (Forum Supporter) said:

Steve, have you read the COVID Updates thread? 

I have.  I find it overwhelmingly one-sided.  It fits a narrative....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to speak for him, but I suspect a more reasonable way of saying that is "it only tells one part of the story"

They are superb medical related updates, nothing wrong with them, but for an overall view of the situation, they do not have information on economic and psychological effects (not what they are for obviously).  Getting accurate information on the second two can obviously be difficult.

 

Ok, but still not seeing how that fits a narrative. 

EDIT: And what I mean by that is, is it omitting medical data that would, presumably, fit the other narrative? It shouldn't be any narrative. 

 

The Professors posts get political, for sure, I could see the argument for his... but they're still just facts, and I'm not sure that he's omitting anything.

I stopped reading when I spotted the one headline which I knew not to be real. The data was neat, but it wasn't just data.

 

 

Ok, this is something that bothers me. Not just here, but everywhere, any media. Headlines are often incorrect. This was a case. It should not dismiss everything else. This is why respectable places (including him, if you call it out) will fix it, retracted it. He's mentioned many times, in comments on facebook, where he has changed data when he found out it was incorrect. 

Sorry Dude, I like you, I don't mean any offense. Here's the deal.

Local news all buzzing about a hurricane, here's where we think it's going to go, wow, it's so scary, better watch out! I check nhc.noaa.gov, oh it looks like it's not even a hurricane yet. There's the track, cool. I'll watch and wait to see. I know that the local Wacky Wendy morning show doesn't have any better data than the NHC. While I fully expect errors and even perhaps the possibility of slanting things, it's data. Don't tell me how scared to be.

My wife sends me news links from reputable sources saying COVID  cases have tripled day/day here, doubled here, etc. Newspapers 'accidently' use the same picture of overflowing ICU's and claim they are from different countries. I go to the CDC, or here in SC, DHEC, and other states we're interested in (Georgia and NC for a few) have their own. I know the data may be inflated in terms of death, because Birx explained that, and frankly I get that it's hard to tell what killed someone with emphysema, asthma, covid19 and obesity. I get it. Fine. Also lots of people probably were asymptomatic and never got tested, but at least it's data. The Plandemic people are no better than Al Gore. bring me the data and I'll check it out.

I see pictures of devastation from Australia fires (remember those?), but oops, some were from other places and other times. Pictures from individuals on the scene show a much milder view.

Anyway the point is this. I want data. I do not have time to weed through noise to get the news. I don't want someone telling me how to interpret it, just give it to me and I'll read it. Your stuff is data, plus a doctors perspective on ongoing and unresolved tests on new treatments, plus a healthy sprinkle of opinions. Fine. I know doctors. If that's what I wanted, I could just ask one. There are millions of doctors. Some are geniuses and some I wouldn't trust to throw away a tissue for me, the same for any profession. I've traveled the country for the best doctors for my wife, and seen the idiocy out there when we stumble across the wrong ones. Plus, as was mentioned above, doctors shouldn't be making policy. They bring a perspective. There are lots of other things to consider.

Anyway, I subscribe to "The Flip Side" for news, since they post both sides equally. I read the "RealClearPolitics" page sometimes for the same. I don't go to anyone else for news. I can't even find single articles on a subject without severe issues and opinions woven in as fact.

So, in summary, the opinions of one doctor presented alongside data isn't worth my time right now. I've lost my tolerance for the news. I need less of it, not more. Keep it going, but I won't be reading. I won't begrudge you, it's just not what I need.

tuna55 (Forum Supporter) said:

 

Sorry Dude, I like you, I don't mean any offense. Here's the deal.

 

Local news all buzzing about a hurricane, here's where we think it's going to go, wow, it's so scary, better watch out! I check nhc.noaa.gov, oh it looks like it's not even a hurricane yet. There's the track, cool. I'll watch and wait to see. I know that the local Wacky Wendy morning show doesn't have any better data than the NHC. While I fully expect errors and even perhaps the possibility of slanting things, it's data. Don't tell me how scared to be.

 

My wife sends me news links from reputable sources saying COVID  cases have tripled day/day here, doubled here, etc. Newspapers 'accidently' use the same picture of overflowing ICU's and claim they are from different countries. I go to the CDC, or here in SC, DHEC, and other states we're interested in (Georgia and NC for a few) have their own. I know the data may be inflated in terms of death, because Birx explained that, and frankly I get that it's hard to tell what killed someone with emphysema, asthma, covid19 and obesity. I get it. Fine. Also lots of people probably were asymptomatic and never got tested, but at least it's data. The Plandemic people are no better than Al Gore. bring me the data and I'll check it out.

 

I see pictures of devastation from Australia fires (remember those?), but oops, some were from other places and other times. Pictures from individuals on the scene show a much milder view.

Anyway the point is this. I want data. I do not have time to weed through noise to get the news. I don't want someone telling me how to interpret it, just give it to me and I'll read it. Your stuff is data, plus a doctors perspective on ongoing and unresolved tests on new treatments, plus a healthy sprinkle of opinions. Fine. I know doctors. If that's what I wanted, I could just ask one. There are millions of doctors. Some are geniuses and some I wouldn't trust to throw away a tissue for me, the same for any profession. I've traveled the country for the best doctors for my wife, and seen the idiocy out there when we stumble across the wrong ones. Plus, as was mentioned above, doctors shouldn't be making policy. They bring a perspective. There are lots of other things to consider.

 

Anyway, I subscribe to "The Flip Side" for news, since they post both sides equally. I read the "RealClearPolitics" page sometimes for the same. I don't go to anyone else for news. I can't even find single articles on a subject without severe issues and opinions woven in as fact.

 

So, in summary, the opinions of one doctor presented alongside data isn't worth my time right now. I've lost my tolerance for the news. I need less of it, not more. Keep it going, but I won't be reading. I won't begrudge you, it's just not what I need.

Tuna, good for you. Thanks for the explanation. I am not trying to convince you to read them. I just take issue with labeling it "fake news" as you did in the thread, or if that was the reason you stopped... Because I could, but that logic, throw out the Flipside (thanks for the tip on that, btw... hadn't seen it before, it has been added to my daily news brief) since it reports Breitbart. No, I doubt the Flipside has actually had any false news or even narratives, but Breitbart is full of them. 

Everyone should be analyzing everything. But to label it as fake or false when something is misreported is bad - and not for the COVID updates, but for everything. If it becomes a pattern, then we should be throwing it out. 

And with that, I think I'm bowing out of this thread (again?) for at least a week. Adios folks!

tuna55 (Forum Supporter) said:

...I can't even find single articles on a subject without severe issues and opinions woven in as fact.

...I've lost my tolerance for the news. I need less of it, not more.

This is pretty much where I am right now as well.  I consider myself a reasonably informed, reasonably intelligent individual who doesn't lean left nor right -- and I can't help but see the constant yellow journalism that's seeped into so much of today's media.  I'm sick of click-bait headlines, misleading photos and partisan punditry.  I have no use for any reporting that deliberately twists or omits facts that don't support a particular narrative.  We live in a society with real problems that deserve real attention and honest discourse.

tuna55 (Forum Supporter) said:

Don't tell me how scared to be.

 

This for me so much. I decide. Not you (royal). Not anyone. If I don't think there is a need for panicked hysteria, I won't show panicked hysteria. 

nderwater said:

tuna55 (Forum Supporter) said:

...I can't even find single articles on a subject without severe issues and opinions woven in as fact.

...I've lost my tolerance for the news. I need less of it, not more.

This is pretty much where I am right now as well.  I consider myself a reasonably informed, reasonably intelligent individual who doesn't lean left nor right -- and I can't help but see the constant yellow journalism that's seeped into so much of today's media.  I'm sick of click-bait headlines, misleading photos and partisan punditry.  I have no use for any reporting that deliberately twists or omits facts that don't support a particular narrative.

also this. Although I know I do lean right of center. I know that going in my confirmational bias will rear its ugly head and I have to try and look around it. 

In reply to mtn (Forum Supporter) :

When you have to type that much, and 6 times in a row, you know it's time to stop. You see your "facts" and disagree with people that do not see it your way. That's how it comes across. 
 

Like I posted earlier, no one here is an infectious disease expert, so it is opinion. We all have one. 

Steve, what have I said that you disagree with here?