COVID-19 (artist formerly known as Wuhan strain novel Corona virus)

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by IP, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    does the percentage matter? It’s the principle. The follow the science people don’t get to not follow the science when it suits them. This is what creates the opinion that things are politically motivated and why 50 percent of Republicans say they won’t get vaccinated.
     
  2. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    If we're going to measure its importance, then, yea, it matters. The follow the science people are following the science. Science is not 100% on anything. So no, nobody can be 100% on anything. Because that isn't science.

    You people want to ignore small percentages. But you can't. And you shouldn't. Here, because the growth is exponential. And if the risk is exponential, and the cost is small by percentage, then spend the money.
     
  3. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    I can ignore 1 in 10,000. It’s also stupid to require vaccinated people to wear masks. Give a little and people will respond.
     
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    It isn't 1 in 10,000, because the virus doesn't stop in that one person. 1 person infected can result in millions of infections. Practically, it's probably like 8 or 10. But then those 8 or 10 infect 8 or 10...

    Virus spreading is the ultimate butterfly effect.

    Vaccines aren't 100%. And risk is additive. Until herd immunity, even the vaccinated should wear masks. Especially if that 5% has contact with those that cannot be vaccinated, which is the 12 and younger crowd.
     
  5. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    It’s not a 1/10,000 chance of touching anything. It’s a 1/10,000 chance if there is a coronavirus present. I don’t care what you say that’s not spreading the virus.

    I’m in a county of 10 mil people where 50 percent of the population has been vaccinated at least one dose and at least another 25 percent has had Covid. We have 500 cases a day. The chances of a maskless fully vaccinated adult spreading Covid here is extremely small.
     
  6. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    It's why we saw a drop in a lot of other communicable diseases, so it did something.
     
  7. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    Valid point
     
  8. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    1/10,000 chance of coronavirus present is enough to infect someone, who will infect someone else, who will infect even more. Because it doesn't stop at the one. It's a snowball effect, where a 1/10,000 chance can lead to a full hospital in a period of weeks.

    The chance of a maskless fully vacinated adult spreading COVID is small. But not zero. And the goal is zero. Or a vaccine for everyone.
     
  9. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    I’m not a believer any chance at all is worth restricting the rights of many especially with the part of the population that isn’t going to get vaccinated if they don’t see a direct benefit. Call me cold
     
  10. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    You're cold, or just short sighted, because kids can't get vaccinated. And opening up means just treating kids as secondary importance.

    We put in steps to protect adults until they could get protection. Now we have to put in steps to protect kids until they can get protection.
     
  11. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    kids don’t get severe Covid reactions. You are legislating for a very small population of kids with known severe disorders whose parents likely aren’t letting them out of the house even now
     
  12. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Kids do get severe COVID reactions. I am fine with legislating to protect those who cannot be protected, until such time as they can be protected.

    The odds of you, individually, being affected are about the same as that of the 40,000,000 children who can't be protected. Should we say, you, droski, can't get the vaccine either, since your risk is that of the 40,000,000 people who can't get it? That wouldn't be fair.

    And since kids also don't have decision making capacity that you yourself has, where you might say you're willing to risk your life so everyone else can eat food in a restaurant... they can't say that.
     
  13. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    the stats don't back that up. their parents are there to protect them. that's who.

    who is saying kids shouldn't get the vaccine?

    kids die from riding a bike, skateboarding, even baseball, gymastics, and football etc etc etc. we going to ban those things too?
     
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    The stats back what up? Kids get severe COVID, absolutely. Their parents can't protect them once everything is open back up. Once things are fully back open, which is going to be a byproduct of people thinking as you are, offices are going to want people back in, which means parents are going to have to send their kids to school. Kids are going to be back into cramped conditions, and overcrowding in these schools, and then also have to spend a lot of after care where the same happens.

    There is no authorized vaccine for kids. It isn't about should or shouldn't. They cannot. There isn't one for them.

    Your last bit here is nonsensical, and doesn't apply to the problem. I am not saying that kids don't die from XYZ, or won't. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't force kids to ride bikes, or skateboard, or do baseball or gymnastics or football. We shouldn't force it.

    But we are forcing them to be at risk because they cannot get a vaccine, because there isn't one out for them.
     
  15. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    they don't get it at a rate that suggests we need to legislate for it. any parent doesn't have to send their kids to school. we are already seeing that in los angeles. for some reason in the poorer areas people are keeping their kids home in much higher numbers than the in the richer areas.

    no is forcing the children's parents to do anything. the children who have died of covid are almost solely kids with known severe preexisting conditions. there are entire states that haven't had a single covid death under the age of 16. and that was before we had heard immunity which we will have soon. you likely won't save a single child's life doing this
     
  16. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    Kids are, or were since it basically went away, at more risk from the flu or dying in a car wreck on the way to school, so we probably should've kept them home for years and years in fear for their safety.
     
  17. droski

    droski Traffic Criminal

    yes you can make the argument we should have these restrictions forever because it's severely decreased pneumonia among children which actually does kill hundreds of thousands of kids a year.
     
  18. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    We have a vaccine for the flu, and we require that they wear safety belts and sit in the back in cars.

    There is a difference. There are no safeties available for kids when it comes to COVID. None. Not a single one.

    The same is not true of the rest.
     
  19. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    We have a vaccine for the flu, yet hospitalization and death rates for healthy kids are still higher with flu than covid.
     
  20. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    We have already seen suicide rates jump, and will see an increase in other mental issues and addiction issues in years to come due to keeping kids at home by themselves this last year
     

Share This Page