Printable View
I'm not scared by the numbers. It's not the numbers that worry me, but the actual people on the end of those numbers. Hopefully I will be lucky enough that I don't lose a loved one because someone spread it around in that community. I have a mother in her 80's with a breathing difficulty and so is in the very high risk category, and I'd hate to think that actions I did or didn't do led to an impact on someone else's parents
That's a very valid concern. I can't for the life of me understand why we're not isolating all the people at risk. Give them all the five star treatment. Surely the cost, both in terms of $$$ and lives lost, would be far cheaper than this shotgun approach we have at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by poundy
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
The latest gun related death rates for the USA that I could find were for 2017. Presumably the figure is rising each year?
"...There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017 (in the USA)..."
[Source: New York Times, 18 December 2018.]
Total coronavirus cases in the world is 858,892 and the number of deaths is 42,158.
[Source: Coronavirus Update (Live): 858,892 Cases and 42,158 Deaths from COVID-19 Virus Outbreak - Worldometer visitted 1-4-20 at 1425 AEST.]
Its official, coronavirus is now more deadly than the NRA.
I agree that quarantining could be much tighter but it's also not without problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tccp123
Quarantining a healthy younger self sufficient person is easy, but children, frail seniors, disabled people, and even some "blokes", need help and they can't just be put in a hotel room and not allow anyone to attend to their needs. Apart from kids, the others are the most likely to get infected and need more attention.
The number of comings and goings required by a disabled person are going to break quarantine anyway and given that some need special equipment they might as well be quarantined to at home.
The next thing is numbers, quarantining works when numbers are low relative to capacity to quarantine. The Chinese were able to cope with large numbers by rapidly building secure hospitals and also able to employ an army of helpers to quarantine their cases. They also not worried about welding apartment doors shut. The Italians/Spaniards/Americans have had such a rapid rise of cases they were simply not able to do this so their "home" quarantining leaks badly - as does ours. The Taiwanese and Singaporeans had considerable testing/tracking and fully supported quarantine systems already in place following SARs and MERS incidents.
Not quite, you are comparing gun deaths in the USA to Covid19 deaths in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
I thought I should make that clear in case the NRA see it and try to catch up.
TccpQuote:
Originally Posted by Tccp123
I am flattered by such an accolade, but the two points taken in isolation are misleading and could be viewed as "cherry picked."
The intent of my comment was that the usual number of deaths are still happening. The deaths attributed to Covid-19 are in addition: If that were not the case we would not be worried about the hospital resources being overloaded in the way they have in Italy to quote one and in New York for another. If you believe scaremongering is afoot look at the field hospital being built in Central Park.
Central Park will be the site of a new hospital for coronavirus patients - ABC News
No government does this unless it absolutely has to.
Regards
Paul
Another good example of how seductive the numbers can be. 39,773 sounds like a very big number to me (as I think it would to mose Australians) but as you can see it's not when compared to other causes of death.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
It's a bit like when I read that the police in 2016 shot dead 30 black people in Detroit alone. I think most people would be shocked by that.
But then you could tell them that 3,000 black people were shot by other black people in Detroit during the same period. That's even more shocking.
So then when you say that over 500,000 people died of smoking related diseases in the US during the same period the other two numbers lose their impact.
My point is the numbers mean nothing unless you put them into context.
That depends on whether you believe conspiracy theories and fake news or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Well we "could" isolate everyone at risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tccp123
But then we would have the situation that WA is approaching.
see Coronavirus infection rates begin to fall, but 'flattening the curve' may mean WA is locked down even longer - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The vulnerable are protected from infection but are then "locked out" of society till a virus vaccine is available in 18 months (optimistic) to 5 years time.
To be effective, the Covid-19 virus would need to be totally eradicated in the general community and all potential sources of infection eliminated till a suitable vaccine becomes widely available.
In post #935, BobL posted this youtube link
https://youtu.be/gxAaO2rsdIs
IMO, the 20 or so minutes it takes to watch are well worth it.
It's a good explanation of how a virus spreads through the community and what little impact certain measures have on the speed of infection, and how other measures can have a notable effect.
At present the government's special National Coronavirus cabinet appears to have finally grasped the importance of acting quickly and decisively.
Yes I agree on a second reading my idea hadn't been thought through. This would be a monumental task.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
and the corona virus has only been killing people for less than 3 months.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
But we kind of are isolating those at risk - by isolating everyone!
It really is not as simple as that. My brother lives with my mother, and is disabled, with a developmental handicap; he has to have in-home care to assist with his personal upkeep and tasks that an 80+ year old can't do. So through the door every week is a large number of different staff; they're also going out to care for others in the community as well. To isolate those people at risk you need to isolate those who support them, and their families, and their family's family, etc...
I look at this quite simply. If you aren't self isolating and conforming to social distancing and taking the precautions that the world is saying, you're just increasing the chance of someone else being affected by your (in)action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tccp123
As "the previous poster" I can see that I must choose my words more carefully as I have again conveyed my meaning poorly. The implied comment, but not stated by me, was that we can see what has happened elsewhere, and our fear is that it could happen here. Not to me of course, because I have a highly developed and very irrational belief in my own invulnerability. However there are many people in the general populace who are at risk and there are more people out there who know somebody who is at risk and they don't want to see them die prematurely.
As to the shutdown of the economy, it has not shut down completely. If we don't take these steps now we will have a China or an Italy style shutdown. We know what happens then. It is there for everybody to see. Unfortunately people are irresponsible and they do not take sufficient care when left to their own devices.
It is back to work for me tomorrow.
Regards
Paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
But the NRA does it every year.
I looked into one of the links from Woodpixels post #1066
and saw these two tweets from the Trump family about fifteen minutes apart!
Attachment 470774
Not exactly sympatico. :?
Regards
Paul