|
|
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 4,350
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 4,350 |
Do you really think Doctors and Nurses are going to stand there and try and figure out any other
Diagnosis when the have dead people all over the place from COVID-19, get real. .
I live "Out West". Where are all these dead people lying around you've seen? Oregon: 64 total deaths attributed to Covid19. 64÷ 4,200,000 (population of the State) x 100 = 0.00152.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,063 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,063 Likes: 4 |
The question is: what constitutes a positive diagnosis?
A bunch of our malcontents will not be satisfied until they see positive lab results in triplicate from three independent labs.
Me? I am willing to take the word of the attending physician. That is what they are trained to do. I don't know if I'm a malcontent, but physicians routinely order lab tests to confirm what they think. No physician can see a virus and unless the symptoms of COVID-19 are unique, the physician doesn't really know until the results of the lab tests come back. That was my point, and was reiterated several times. There are many reports that C 19 pneumonia is unique in that it is typically bilateral, where pneumonia with other causative factors is usually limited to one lobe or to one lung. No, it's biology. There are no absolutes. But if you are in a busy ward filled with C 19 contagion and one of your nurses succumbs to bilateral pneumonia and dies. You are going to be pretty safe writing Covid 19 on the death certificate. Even more so if the patient lost their sense of smell during their illness. Save the precious tests for someone you can help. The permanent lung damage specific to C-19 shows up on chest x-rays, and ultra-sounds as well. Remember the upward revision in China? That was due to the inclusion of the consideration of chest x-rays in the diagnosis.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,063 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,063 Likes: 4 |
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down." The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc. My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia. If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes. It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis. Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do. So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information? You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out. I'm saying that in the real world, those tests, especially the early one's, that you are holding out as the gold standard are no where near as good as you think they are. The biggest problem they have is with "false negatives". About 30% of the time they will come back negative when someone actually has the condition. Let me put this a different way. If your only diagnostic tool is "the test", in order to be 99% certain someone does NOT have the disease, you need 3 consecutive negative results. Now let that sink in a bit, then ask yourself if we should only look at "the test", or consider all relevant data.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,228
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,228 |
Do you really think Doctors and Nurses are going to stand there and try and figure out any other
Diagnosis when the have dead people all over the place from COVID-19, get real. All they want to do is get to someone they might save,
that is the way it should be. These hospital have been working at 150% of capacity they have no time for fancy diagnosis like you are proposing. Or
any kind of other games you are proposing.
I'm not hearing about hospitals working at over 100% capacity in many places. How long does it take a reasonably skilled phlebotomist to draw a vile of blood? I've never seen a physician draw blood anywhere and I've only seen nurses do it in ERs or in physician offices. Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 9,648 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 9,648 Likes: 2 |
When I first read this headline I had the text book reaction, OMG!!!!!!!
Then I caught my senses & thought about the population density up there.
My search of how many people die per month in NY?
The answer was over 7,000 per day in 2017. I looked more, that's what I kept reading. If so?????? The headline means..................?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,947 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,947 Likes: 7 |
I am far from typical. But it takes the best hospital phlebotomist an average of fifteen minutes and six sticks to catch a vein.
I will not even let the nurses at the Dr. office try anymore. I am no masochist. Once, at the Dr. Office, the girls gave up and tapped an artery in my wrist. The two of them were minus about a pound of boneless rump each when Dr got done with them. I was embarrassed to overhear that conversation, even though they were outside the room.
Then the Dr refused to let me leave for about forty five minutes. Afraid I was going to spring a leak.
I go straight to the hospital lab and let the lady there get my blood whenever Dr wants lab work.
No, I do not donate blood anymore either.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,228
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,228 |
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down." The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc. My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia. If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes. It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis. Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do. So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information? You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out. I'm saying that in the real world, those tests, especially the early one's, that you are holding out as the gold standard are no where near as good as you think they are. The biggest problem they have is with "false negatives". About 30% of the time they will come back negative when someone actually has the condition. Let me put this a different way. If your only diagnostic tool is "the test", in order to be 99% certain someone does NOT have the disease, you need 3 consecutive negative results. Now let that sink in a bit, then ask yourself if we should only look at "the test", or consider all relevant data. If "the test" is the only way to determine is a person has, or doesn't have, COVID-19 and it fails 30% of the time, anyone who tests negative should be retested two more times, at least until improved tests are available. Can you cite the source of your 30% failure rate for "the test"? The other "relevant" data seems more anecdotal than scientific. Anecdotal data corrupts the data pool. I think that we should reboot the country and trust that herd immunity will allow 99.7% of us to get back to living.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,947 Likes: 7
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,947 Likes: 7 |
Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.
If I make sure to never be exposed to C19, my odds of surviving it are 100%. I like those odds much better. I drive about 20,000 miles/year, mostly commute. If I make sure no other asswhole on the road hits me, I figure I have about a 100% chance of not dying in an auto crash. That has also worked well for 45 years. Still zero accidents. Got to have perspective.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,063 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,063 Likes: 4 |
Do you really think Doctors and Nurses are going to stand there and try and figure out any other
Diagnosis when the have dead people all over the place from COVID-19, get real. All they want to do is get to someone they might save,
that is the way it should be. These hospital have been working at 150% of capacity they have no time for fancy diagnosis like you are proposing. Or
any kind of other games you are proposing.
I'm not hearing about hospitals working at over 100% capacity in many places. How long does it take a reasonably skilled phlebotomist to draw a vile of blood? I've never seen a physician draw blood anywhere and I've only seen nurses do it in ERs or in physician offices. Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective. Active C-19's not tested for via a blood draw. They use a nasal swap to scrape the back of you sinuses, and that's only the first part of the process. Then the lab work begins. Draw too small a sample, or it doesn't replicate in the test environment, and you get a false negative.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,063 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,063 Likes: 4 |
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down." The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc. My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia. If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes. It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis. Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do. So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information? You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out. I'm saying that in the real world, those tests, especially the early one's, that you are holding out as the gold standard are no where near as good as you think they are. The biggest problem they have is with "false negatives". About 30% of the time they will come back negative when someone actually has the condition. Let me put this a different way. If your only diagnostic tool is "the test", in order to be 99% certain someone does NOT have the disease, you need 3 consecutive negative results. Now let that sink in a bit, then ask yourself if we should only look at "the test", or consider all relevant data. If "the test" is the only way to determine is a person has, or doesn't have, COVID-19 and it fails 30% of the time, anyone who tests negative should be retested two more times, at least until improved tests are available. Can you cite the source of your 30% failure rate for "the test"? The other "relevant" data seems more anecdotal than scientific. Anecdotal data corrupts the data pool. I think that we should reboot the country and trust that herd immunity will allow 99.7% of us to get back to living. Here's one: https://www.healthline.com/health-n...9-tests-symptoms-assume-you-have-illnessThere's 100 more if you took 30 seconds to look. You must not have ever done any real work in your life, or at least none in a crisis with limited resources because you seem to have no idea how the real work functions under adverse conditions. There's a shortage of test kits, not a surplus. The initial costs were $1000.00 to $1500.00 each. If you got a little sick would you spend $4500.00 of your own money for the 99% certainty, or just get the one, quarantine for 14 days, watch for additional symptoms and indicators, and escalate treatment and testing as conditions warranted? What about lab space? Do you think labs are inhabited by pixies that just sprinkle a little dust on the swap in order to get a result? Have you ever heard of an Opportunity cost? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costIn case that's too complex for you, here's a simpler explination: https://kids.kiddle.co/Opportunity_costOverall, you reasoning suffers from a heavy dose of the Nirvana Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacyWell, Nirvana is not for this world. We live in a world of limited resources and imperfect solutions. Often, especially in adverse conditions, the choices are not among the "best solutions", but among the "least bad" solutions. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or the better. In conditions like these, it often means drawing the most reasonable conclusion possible, as quick as possible, using the minimum resources possible, so you can develop and begin execution of a "C" plan today, instead of waiting until you have the perfect "A" plan three weeks from now when either the patients already dead, or has infected another 20 people.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,584 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,584 Likes: 8 |
Covtards again provin they're nothin but liberals.
Used ta be, you couldn't have it unless you was tested, or the Covtards went nuts.
Now, with the Covid hysteria on a ventilator, everbody's got it, and ya don't even need a test.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,166 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,166 Likes: 4 |
Testing is going to be a game changer, take some of the hysteria and fear out of this thing.
A test has to be consistent, negative predictive values and positive predictive values are key. A high PPV is like precision in our shooting game, which is not exactly the same as accuracy. But that’s another story.
NPV deals with false negatives, too many and the test confidence isn’t good.
It takes time to develop and evaluate a new test.
Big bucks and lots of pressure to roll them out. But it still takes time to know if and when you have a good one that can be trusted and counted on.
DF
Last edited by Dirtfarmer; 04/16/20.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 17,070 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 17,070 Likes: 1 |
NY/NJ community have 19,700 claimed virus deaths... the rest of the country have 15,000. Obviously that's not possible.
Corona is a medical miracle... it's reduced cancer, heart, stroke, diabetes, emphysema, dementia deaths across the board.
Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,228
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,228 |
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down." The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc. My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia. If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes. It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis. Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do. So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information? You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out. I'm saying that in the real world, those tests, especially the early one's, that you are holding out as the gold standard are no where near as good as you think they are. The biggest problem they have is with "false negatives". About 30% of the time they will come back negative when someone actually has the condition. Let me put this a different way. If your only diagnostic tool is "the test", in order to be 99% certain someone does NOT have the disease, you need 3 consecutive negative results. Now let that sink in a bit, then ask yourself if we should only look at "the test", or consider all relevant data. If "the test" is the only way to determine is a person has, or doesn't have, COVID-19 and it fails 30% of the time, anyone who tests negative should be retested two more times, at least until improved tests are available. Can you cite the source of your 30% failure rate for "the test"? The other "relevant" data seems more anecdotal than scientific. Anecdotal data corrupts the data pool. I think that we should reboot the country and trust that herd immunity will allow 99.7% of us to get back to living. Here's one: https://www.healthline.com/health-n...9-tests-symptoms-assume-you-have-illnessThere's 100 more if you took 30 seconds to look. You must not have ever done any real work in your life, or at least none in a crisis with limited resources because you seem to have no idea how the real work functions under adverse conditions. There's a shortage of test kits, not a surplus. The initial costs were $1000.00 to $1500.00 each. If you got a little sick would you spend $4500.00 of your own money for the 99% certainty, or just get the one, quarantine for 14 days, watch for additional symptoms and indicators, and escalate treatment and testing as conditions warranted? What about lab space? Do you think labs are inhabited by pixies that just sprinkle a little dust on the swap in order to get a result? Have you ever heard of an Opportunity cost? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costIn case that's too complex for you, here's a simpler explination: https://kids.kiddle.co/Opportunity_costOverall, you reasoning suffers from a heavy dose of the Nirvana Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacyWell, Nirvana is not for this world. We live in a world of limited resources and imperfect solutions. Often, especially in adverse conditions, the choices are not among the "best solutions", but among the "least bad" solutions. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or the better. In conditions like these, it often means drawing the most reasonable conclusion possible, as quick as possible, using the minimum resources possible, so you can develop and begin execution of a "C" plan today, instead of waiting until you have the perfect "A" plan three weeks from now when either the patients already dead, or has infected another 20 people. I try to approach things from a pragmatic perspective, as I believe that people generally make sub-optimal choices when they let themselves get emotionally attached. From what I can glean from the available information, the great majority of people who become infected are going to be asymptomatic and they are going to live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,063 Likes: 4
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,063 Likes: 4 |
Has anyone ever seen a death cert which says "Suspected heart failure, don't know for sure", "Suspected drug overdose, but not positive", "Possible blunt force trauma when the head hit the pavement after jumping from a ten story building. But not really sure. Might have been a heart attack on the way down." The few death certificates that I've seen listed a previously diagnosed illness and/or an underlying condition as the cause of death, unless the death was from an obvious acute incident, a fall or vehicle accident or suicide or gunshot wound or etc. My Father's death certificate listed old age, he was 91, and Leukemia. An underlying condition, old age, and a previously diagnosed illness, Leukemia. If a person dies and hasn't been positively diagnosed with COVID-19, how accurate is it to cite the cause of death as being from COVID-19? Might have been COVID-19, but how can anyone know without the person testing positive? It seems like a binary, black or white, situation. You either test positive or your don't, no maybes. It's called DATA. More specifically multi-variate analysis. I was working with a data set last week and we could predict with over 95% certainty if a person had heart disease without a diagnosis. Like wise, there are ways to determine if a person has COVID-19 with a high degree of certainty, without the DNA test,through other methods such as chest x-rays, lung ultra-sounds and symptom correlation. Under some conditions, some of these methods are actually MORE accurate then the currently available test, and are being used to identify "false negatives", i.e. when the DNA test says a person doesn't have Covid when they do. So, are you saying that the currently accepted method for testing for COVID-19 doesn't work? If so, how often, and where are you getting your information? You have more faith in the depth of physician knowledge as it pertains to COVID-19 than I do. I am also suspect of data being used with regard to COVID-19, particularly any data coming out of the NYC metro area. Garbage in, garbage out. I'm saying that in the real world, those tests, especially the early one's, that you are holding out as the gold standard are no where near as good as you think they are. The biggest problem they have is with "false negatives". About 30% of the time they will come back negative when someone actually has the condition. Let me put this a different way. If your only diagnostic tool is "the test", in order to be 99% certain someone does NOT have the disease, you need 3 consecutive negative results. Now let that sink in a bit, then ask yourself if we should only look at "the test", or consider all relevant data. If "the test" is the only way to determine is a person has, or doesn't have, COVID-19 and it fails 30% of the time, anyone who tests negative should be retested two more times, at least until improved tests are available. Can you cite the source of your 30% failure rate for "the test"? The other "relevant" data seems more anecdotal than scientific. Anecdotal data corrupts the data pool. I think that we should reboot the country and trust that herd immunity will allow 99.7% of us to get back to living. Here's one: https://www.healthline.com/health-n...9-tests-symptoms-assume-you-have-illnessThere's 100 more if you took 30 seconds to look. You must not have ever done any real work in your life, or at least none in a crisis with limited resources because you seem to have no idea how the real work functions under adverse conditions. There's a shortage of test kits, not a surplus. The initial costs were $1000.00 to $1500.00 each. If you got a little sick would you spend $4500.00 of your own money for the 99% certainty, or just get the one, quarantine for 14 days, watch for additional symptoms and indicators, and escalate treatment and testing as conditions warranted? What about lab space? Do you think labs are inhabited by pixies that just sprinkle a little dust on the swap in order to get a result? Have you ever heard of an Opportunity cost? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_costIn case that's too complex for you, here's a simpler explination: https://kids.kiddle.co/Opportunity_costOverall, you reasoning suffers from a heavy dose of the Nirvana Fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacyWell, Nirvana is not for this world. We live in a world of limited resources and imperfect solutions. Often, especially in adverse conditions, the choices are not among the "best solutions", but among the "least bad" solutions. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or the better. In conditions like these, it often means drawing the most reasonable conclusion possible, as quick as possible, using the minimum resources possible, so you can develop and begin execution of a "C" plan today, instead of waiting until you have the perfect "A" plan three weeks from now when either the patients already dead, or has infected another 20 people. I try to approach things from a pragmatic perspective, as I believe that people generally make sub-optimal choices when they let themselves get emotionally attached. From what I can glean from the available information, the great majority of people who become infected are going to be asymptomatic and they are going to live. Some relatively small portion of the herd will get sick and some relatively small portion of the sick will die. The last really hard work that I did as a civilian was as a mason's tender when over 50 years ago. I was an officer and as any enlisted person will tell you, officers don't work, they sit around thinking of ways to make easy jobs harder than necessary. I prefer to work smart and outsource the hard work to someone who specializes in hard work. Then I suggest you approach this problem less like a mason, and more like an officer. But not like an officer spending an unlimited amount of tax payer money, but his own money. This will lead toward more viable solutions.
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 04/17/20.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,228
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,228 |
We're spending money from a budget that is only limited by the imaginations of the politicians who are trying to figure out how to get a bigger share of the pie for the constituents who they are pandering to, so if we take a little from here and a little from there and there'll be enough to pay for all those additional over-price under-performing test kits.
Since I wasn't given a choice about whether or not to buy a ticket on this out of control express train that we all seem to suddenly find ourselves on, I'm going to let it take me wherever it takes me and expect that I'll come out clean and fresh and ready to go when the ride is over. From my perspective a 99.7% survival rate is like playing cards with house money, you can hardly lose. I know that people are going to die, but people die all of the time and it seldom effects me, so why should this be any different? When it is all over, I'll either read the book or wait for the movie to come out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,228
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32,228 |
Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.
If I make sure to never be exposed to C19, my odds of surviving it are 100%. I like those odds much better. I drive about 20,000 miles/year, mostly commute. If I make sure no other asswhole on the road hits me, I figure I have about a 100% chance of not dying in an auto crash. That has also worked well for 45 years. Still zero accidents. Got to have perspective. If most people who have COVID-19 are asymptomatic, how can you avoid being exposed to it at some point during the rest of your life without permanently self-quarantining yourself? You might, in a rural area, avoid it until a vaccine is produced, but it seems likely that most people will be exposed and most of them won't even know that they have it. Since you don't have any control over what other drivers do, or don't do, I can't see any way for you to insure that some other asswhole on the road won't hit you unless you stay off the roads.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20,824 |
Even if the eventual death toll is 1,000,000 lives, that is still only about 1/3 of 1%, so the odds of surviving COVID-19 are about 99.7%. Got to have perspective.
If I make sure to never be exposed to C19, my odds of surviving it are 100%. I like those odds much better. I drive about 20,000 miles/year, mostly commute. If I make sure no other asswhole on the road hits me, I figure I have about a 100% chance of not dying in an auto crash. That has also worked well for 45 years. Still zero accidents. Got to have perspective. If most people who have COVID-19 are asymptomatic, how can you avoid being exposed to it at some point during the rest of your life without permanently self-quarantining yourself? You might, in a rural area, avoid it until a vaccine is produced, but it seems likely that most people will be exposed and most of them won't even know that they have it. Since you don't have any control over what other drivers do, or don't do, I can't see any way for you to insure that some other asswhole on the road won't hit you unless you stay off the roads. I too would like to know how Idaho Shooter plans on avoiding the "covid" for the rest of his life? Seems he places that responsibility on others.
Originally Posted by Judman
PS, if you think Trump is “good” you’re way stupider than I thought! Haha
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,561 Likes: 3
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 26,561 Likes: 3 |
Some aren't getting the "SLOW the spread" mantra the powers have taken......still.
FJB & FJT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,185 Likes: 7
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,185 Likes: 7 |
The government ISN'T counting deaths in nursing homes or Veteran's facility's... No one is requiring them to report anything and in fact most are trying to hide information on these deaths. Personally I believe the administration has hog tied quite a few and in fact the numbers are way under reported throughout the country. The same way that they required the Military to stop reporting numbers or locations. New York along with a few other states have taken it upon them selves out of necessity to go in and report on the conditions at these places themselves. If you want to look at things being done wrong... look no further than South Dakota's governor who like trump thinks it will all go away with a wave of the hand and just disappear as if in a miracle. You'd think news of mass graves within the U.S. would case all this to sink in... but still quite a few figure it cant or won't happen to them or anyone close to them. LinkPhil Do a little more research on SD Phil. Let’s research multi generational immigrants and housing and also working in the plant. But even though the sky is falling in your Southern California mind let’s verify that SD has 51 people hospitalized and a total of 6 deaths. Yeah, that’s terrible. And they haven't shut down. Maybe New York should have followed SD's example.
|
|
|
|
|
577 members (1badf350, 1lesfox, 24HourCampFireGuy50, 12344mag, 222Sako, 10gaugemag, 62 invisible),
2,661
guests, and
1,220
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,928
Posts18,498,623
Members73,983
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
