Really? What about p-values and confidence intervals? Hell, I thought it was the whole foundation of the thing!
What is likely to be true is that high variance in susceptibility to infection means transmission rates will start to drop off, since more susceptible people tend to be infected early. Are super-spreaders likely themselves to be more susceptible to infection, and therefore to be overrepresented in that first 50 million? I don’t think we know that.
I strongly disagree with you. Most of the public has a more than healthy fear of this virus. we also know that the general public is not at great risk from this virus. People and families are a ware of risk factors and are better able to isolate and protect the vulnerable. The public has been sorely ill advised or not advised as to how to identify and protect the vulnerable. That is the key to making this virus manageable. We need to open up, brace ourselves for a good hit and then life should be able to get back to normal pretty quick.
The large piles of corpses are just a unfortunate side effect of this plan.
“We” have to brace for “them” to die.
Well, before they die we will drain them of their precious bodily fluids, namely their plasma, then they can die.
Look, when THIS CDC under THIS administration says do less testing, there’s only one conclusion to be reached.
You tell me what proportion of exposed people who don’t get tested you think end up quarantining when they should.
If your doctor tells you you should be screened for X, it makes an impression.
It’s been 6 fucking months. Improve the throughput. WTF.
This is just more “pretend it’s over” shit.
Probabilities do play an important role in science. So what are the p-values and confidence intervals of your “probably”?
My observation when I read the news every day is that both of these statements are wrong.
Tons of people people vastly overestimate the risks posed to them by this virus.
She’s a fucking investment officer, not a doctor. She is also ignoring the serious, long term effects many survivors(of all ages) suffer from.
Frankly, I’m not interested in taking the risk. You can always rebuild an investment portfolio, not so much a wrecked body.
Poisoning the well fallacy. What data that she presents do you disagree with?
Regarding the long term effects - definitely possible. At this point, I haven’t seen data to cause me much alarm.
If ever there was a time for a raised eybrow smiley face, this is it
You even acknowledge that there might be an issue of long term effects - despite you having absolutely no expertise in the subject.
…and since you have absolutely no expertise, you do not have the knowledge to evaluate if an investment banker with nothing more than an opinion actually has anything relevant to say.
In other words, you are the one guilty of poisoning the well by offering up cites from individuals who do not have recognised credentials, do not work in the field of epidemiology, has not taken into account a very major consideration in regard to the virus - and this is the only cite you can find in a world which is overflowing with reputable cites from credible sources.
Seems to me you did your google search and out of the millions of articles found, this was the only one that you could interpret as supporting your utterly erroneous assumptions - it is you who are poisining the well with irrelevant cites from uninformed individuals with no expertise in the field in which she is making her comments
Of course there might be long term effects. I don’t know. You don’t know. I’m open to being presented with data that shows the situation is going to be dire. I’ve read articles about “long haulers.” How frequently do they occur? Who’s affected? How do they compare to other known respiratory diseases? Given the prevalence and severity how should it affect our policy response? I’m 100% open to changing my position to one of alarm, but as of now I personally don’t feel it’s warranted.
All they’ve shown is that people misperceive which age groups are at greater risk.
It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and you spotted the sheep like they wanted.
Does having both of your legs amputated or better yet DYING count as long term effects?
a type of informal fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target
(bolding mine)
It is not irrelevant that the person you are quoting has a job that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
While we obviously don’t know how many people have truly long-term effects (largely because it’s so new), and we probably don’t yet know what percentage of affected people become “long haulers,” some perspective from an article in The Atlantic, about lingering effects:
While they do show that, they also show that people (younger) personally perceive themselves as much more at risk than the data would seem to justify.
This misperception translates directly into a degree of fear for one’s health that for most people vastly exceeds the actual risk: we find that the share of people who are very worried or somewhat worried of suffering serious health consequences should they contract COVID-19 is almost identical across all age brackets between 25 and 64 years old, and it’s not far below the share for people 65 and older.
Sure.