Disc Golf Course Review

Disc Golf Course Review (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Disc Golf Chat (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Are we not taking Covid-19 seriously (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136199)

ru4por 07-07-2020 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orioles_Lefty (Post 3604301)
Based on this response alone, it would be a pleasure to play a round with you, ru4por.

Lol.....hope I am not missing some sarcasm. I have found this thread enlightening. I have discovered a healthy respect for both the intellect and compassion of many frequent posters here, including yourself, Lefty. I hope that in my resumed disc golf travels, I am presented with the opportunity to meet and play with many of you. Even those that I disagree with. I am not driven by hate, though I can get frustrated with this particular topic. :o

Rastnav 07-07-2020 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ru4por (Post 3604217)
Allowing the virus to run its course will overwhelm the healthcare system. This has been the issue all along. No safety measures were EVER designed to stop the virus, only extend it, so people do not die in street, churches, community centers and their homes.

Those are excellent points, but I have a minor, or not so minor, quibble. We are extending things not just to avoid high simultaneous case numbers, but also, and perhaps more importantly, because time = knowledge.

The range of treatments used for Covid become more efficacious the farther we get into the research of them. They range from the simplest, like understanding the efficacy of positional therapy and oxygen support, to the most speculative, like all of the various potential drug therapies being assessed or even developed. These have the potential to mitigate the overall damage of the epidemic by a huge amount.

R-Ogre 07-07-2020 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidSauls (Post 3604309)
And yet, their death rate (per million) is significantly higher than ours, and much higher than their neighbors with similar populations.

Yep. And yet the “truthers” hold them up as an example. And from what I understand, despite not having lockdowns, they are NOT at all going about their normal lives.

ru4por 07-07-2020 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rastnav (Post 3604313)
Those are excellent points, but I have a minor, or not so minor, quibble. We are extending things not just to avoid high simultaneous case numbers, but also, and perhaps more importantly, because time = knowledge.

The range of treatments used for Covid become more efficacious the farther we get into the research of them. They range from the simplest, like understanding the efficacy of positional therapy and oxygen support, to the most speculative, like all of the various potential drug therapies being assessed or even developed. These have the potential to mitigate the overall damage of the epidemic by a huge amount.

Terrific points.

Guurn 07-07-2020 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orioles_Lefty (Post 3604305)
“It was never” according to whom? Who is the “our” in “our goal”? As an at-risk person, I’m not agreeing to what ableist society wants. F that.

Yes, my goal is for people not to get it. The “hospital occupancy” argument assumes that people recover. Have you read the horror stories? No one should be okay with getting this virus or with a society that assumes they should be okay with getting it. Nope. Nope. Nope.

This is bunk. You should read a little science around the subject, you sound like a denier. The area under the curve (which we were trying to bend) was always the same. If you look at the current data the death rates are going down while the number of infected is going up. This is a 2 part thing. Our treatments have gotten better yes, but mostly the average age of the people infected has gone down. There are many reasons for this, young people are going out (it is summer) and some awful governors have stopped sending positive cases into nursing homes.

Thing logically, if our goal is herd immunity or vaccine. We have to either get to some fixed percentage of the population infected and cured or get a breakthrough vaccine. That's it so far.

Rastnav 07-07-2020 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guurn (Post 3604327)
Thing logically, if our goal is herd immunity or vaccine. We have to either get to some fixed percentage of the population infected and cured or get a breakthrough vaccine. That's it so far.

Our goal at this point is to figure out what our goal can be.

New Zealand, South Korea, Japan ... they've shown that it is possible to flatten the curve so far down that there is plenty of hope to believe that the area under it can eventually be reduced.

Hampstead 07-07-2020 02:10 PM

Research coming out of Spain seems to suggest that herd immunity isn't feasible.

Quote:


“The relatively low seroprevalence observed in the context of an intense epidemic in Spain might serve as a reference to other countries,” the researchers wrote. “At present, herd immunity is difficult to achieve without accepting the collateral damage of many deaths in the susceptible population and overburdening of health systems.”

Quote:

Absent a vaccine being proven safe and effective – which may not become available until next year – there was some hope early on among some experts that herd immunity could provide protection against the disease. However, it remains unclear how protective antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are or for how long. Moreover, countries that attempted to use herd immunity, such as the U.K. and Sweden, have been among those experiencing the most difficulty getting the outbreak under control.
https://medcitynews.com/2020/07/span...t-be-possible/

Orioles_Lefty 07-07-2020 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guurn (Post 3604327)
This is bunk. You should read a little science around the subject, you sound like a denier. The area under the curve (which we were trying to bend) was always the same. If you look at the current data the death rates are going down while the number of infected is going up. This is a 2 part thing. Our treatments have gotten better yes, but mostly the average age of the people infected has gone down. There are many reasons for this, young people are going out (it is summer) and some awful governors have stopped sending positive cases into nursing homes.

Thing logically, if our goal is herd immunity or vaccine. We have to either get to some fixed percentage of the population infected and cured or get a breakthrough vaccine. That's it so far.

If herd immunity is your goal, then your logic seems solid. But you are asking people to make a helluva commitment for uncertain ends.

R-Ogre 07-07-2020 02:22 PM

Herd immunity by infection worked great with polio and smallpox.

Monocacy 07-07-2020 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rastnav (Post 3604329)
New Zealand, South Korea, Japan ... they've shown that it is possible to flatten the curve so far down that there is plenty of hope to believe that the area under it can eventually be reduced.

And not only that - crushing the cases down to a low enough number allows some economic activity to resume, as long as it is done smartly.

I am highly skeptical about "protect the vulnerable" strategies. If someone is in a nursing home, other people are providing services for them - nursing care, therapy, cleaning, changing sheets, providing food, etc.

From what I have seen of nursing homes, a lot of the people providing services are in the "hey, they probably won't get too sick so let the pandemic run wild" age demographic.

And as Orioles Lefty said, there are lots of vulnerable people throughout the population.

Plus, especially among poor folks, there are lots of multi-generation households. Hard to protect grandma when grandson is bar-hopping.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.