He, whoever he is, said 480,000 deaths, not 480. I'm not at all clear about who this is.Originally Posted by Craic
He, whoever he is, said 480,000 deaths, not 480. I'm not at all clear about who this is.
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
480,000. You're right, and that's what I had. Unfortunately, I edited the sentence and didn't get the last three digits.l If you click on the video or watch it, you'll find out he's Michael Osterholm
Here's his bio:
Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH
Dr. Osterholm is Regents Professor, McKnight Presidential Endowed Chair in Public Health, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, a professor in the Technological Leadership Institute, College of Science and Engineering, and an adjunct professor in the Medical School, all at the University of Minnesota. From June 2018 through May 2019, he served as a Science Envoy for Health Security on behalf of the US Department of State. He is also on the Board of Regents at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa.
He is the author of the 2017 book, Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs, in which he not only details the most pressing infectious disease threats of our day but lays out a nine-point strategy on how to address them, with preventing a global flu pandemic at the top of the list.
In addition, Dr. Osterholm is a member of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) and the Council of Foreign Relations. In June 2005 Dr. Osterholm was appointed by Michael Leavitt, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to the newly established National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity. In July 2008, he was named to the University of Minnesota Academic Health Center’s Academy of Excellence in Health Research. In October 2008, he was appointed to the World Economic Forum Working Group on Pandemics.
From 2001 through early 2005, Dr. Osterholm, in addition to his role at CIDRAP, served as a Special Advisor to then–HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson on issues related to bioterrorism and public health preparedness. He was also appointed to the Secretary's Advisory Council on Public Health Preparedness. On April 1, 2002, Dr. Osterholm was appointed by Thompson to be his representative on the interim management team to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). With the appointment of Dr. Julie Gerberding as director of the CDC on July 3, 2002, Dr. Osterholm was asked by Thompson to assist Dr. Gerberding on his behalf during the transition period. He filled that role through January 2003.
Previously, Dr. Osterholm served for 24 years (1975-1999) in various roles at the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), the last 15 as state epidemiologist and chief of the Acute Disease Epidemiology Section. While at the MDH, Osterholm and his team were leaders in the area of infectious disease epidemiology. He has led numerous investigations of outbreaks of international importance, including foodborne diseases, the association of tampons and toxic shock syndrome (TSS), the transmission of hepatitis B in healthcare settings, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in healthcare workers. In addition, his team conducted numerous studies regarding infectious diseases in child-care settings, vaccine-preventable diseases (particularly Haemophilus influenzae type b and hepatitis B), Lyme disease, and other emerging infections. They were also among the first to call attention to the changing epidemiology of foodborne diseases.
Dr. Osterholm was the Principal Investigator and Director of the NIH-supported Minnesota Center of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance (2007-2014) and chaired the Executive Committee of the Centers of Excellence Influenza Research and Surveillance network.
Dr. Osterholm has been an international leader on the critical concern regarding our preparedness for an influenza pandemic. His invited papers in the journals Foreign Affairs, the New England Journal of Medicine, and Nature detail the threat of an influenza pandemic before the recent pandemic and the steps we must take to better prepare for such events. Dr. Osterholm has also been an international leader on the growing concern regarding the use of biological agents as catastrophic weapons targeting civilian populations. In that role, he served as a personal advisor to the late King Hussein of Jordan. Dr. Osterholm provides a comprehensive and pointed review of America's current state of preparedness for a bioterrorism attack in his New York Times best-selling book, Living Terrors: What America Needs to Know to Survive the Coming Bioterrorist Catastrophe.
The author of more than 315 papers and abstracts, including 21 book chapters, Dr. Osterholm is a frequently invited guest lecturer on the topic of epidemiology of infectious diseases. He serves on the editorial boards of nine journals, including Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology and Microbial Drug Resistance: Mechanisms, Epidemiology and Disease, and he is a reviewer for 24 additional journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, and Science. He is past president of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and has served on the CDC's National Center for Infectious Diseases Board of Scientific Counselors from 1992 to 1997. Dr. Osterholm served on the IOM Forum on Microbial Threats from 1994 through 2011. He has served on the IOM Committee on Emerging Microbial Threats to Health in the 21st Century and the IOM Committee on Food Safety, Production to Consumption, and he was a reviewer for the IOM Report on Chemical and Biological Terrorism. As a member of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), Dr. Osterholm has served on the Committee on Biomedical Research of the Public and Scientific Affairs Board, the Task Force on Biological Weapons, and the Task Force on Antibiotic Resistance. He is a frequent consultant to the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Defense, and the CDC. He is a fellow of the American College of Epidemiology and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
Dr. Osterholm has received numerous honors for his work, including an honorary doctorate from Luther College; the Pump Handle Award, CSTE; the Charles C. Shepard Science Award, CDC; the Harvey W. Wiley Medal, FDA; the Squibb Award, IDSA; Distinguished University Teaching Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, UMN; and the Wade Hampton Frost Leadership Award, American Public Health Association. He also has been the recipient of six major research awards from the NIH and the CDC.
Yeah, I looked him up. I'm going to reserve comment on this for obvious reasons.
Eh, I mean there was some sort of contradictory information about a tangent. Fine, I will back off on the evils of socialized medicine. The main point is still whether this is enough of an emergency to basically shut down the entire world. It still does not look anywhere near that.
Perhaps a needed conversation to have is, at what point is the current panic "worth" the tradeoff? On a scale of "even saving one life is worth any cost," to "100 million people could die and I don't give a fuck as long as I can still go to Comic-Con."
Like, as a starting point, say 1,000 people in the U.S. were going to die, but the current panic cut it to zero. Would that be worth the tradeoff? I wouldn't think it is, especially given that the typical profile of most who die is someone with one foot in the grave already. Say it was 10,000. To me, that still falls in the "shit you can't really control" category if a batshit full-country lockdown is the only solution. Sure, it sucks a lot, but making those trade-offs is opening a Pandora's Box that I don't think is worth it.
None of this "But if even ONE of those people was your grandfather, or your sister, would it be worth it THEN???" either. That's a horseshit tactic that is the same as saying, "I am just going to weasel out of this and try to portray you as lacking empathy, without actually giving any answer."
But that is the question that it all really boils down to.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
According to the video I posted, the entire problem is that by the time it starts to look as though it is, it is way to late. The infection rate will double every four days until it hits a ceiling. By shutting down travel and other things, one of the big advantages is that it spreads that time out. So, you still get the infections, but it's over a longer period of time, which means it can be adsorbed by the medical community much easier and there isn't such a heavy strain for the same resources at the same time.
Secondly, again according to the expert on the video (and I saw CDC stats that back it up), another very big issue is the length of the pandemic. It will not be a month, or three months. Experts are thinking it will be six or seven months, and, after the initial wave peters out, there will be a second even bigger wave.
------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the second sentence that I've quoted. I have to wonder if that is at the heart of your argument? Is that really why you're so concerned about everything going on as far as the response goes?
Because, in truth, it concerns me as well. It's very concerning. Especially if travel between the states by automobile or bike or even walking is banned. In truth, the govt. has the right to shut down federal highways as they were built for the federal govt. to transport military/use in civil defense to clear cities targeted by nuclear weapons (hindsight being 20/20, that would have been a mess). But outside of that... I do NOT like the precedent set. However, I'm also not sure I like the results if something isn't done. CDC's worst case scenario is 214 million infected and 1.7 million deaths in the United states without anything done to stop this from spreading.
In short, at this point,
Answering the second part first - yes, that has been the absolute core of what I've argued from the beginning: The cure is worse than the disease. Quite literally, in this case.
What's going on now is basically the equivalent of wartime brownouts or hurricane curfews, only uniquely to this time, it's not because of a disaster, it's because a disaster might happen. But guess what, there are a lot of times when a disaster might happen. It is a terrible precedent to set that we should shut down the economy and go halfway to martial law for that, especially when it is based on pretty flimsy evidence. Particularly with infectious diseases, when there is a scare about the worst-case scenario, most of those disasters actually do not happen, or even come close. And there is not a lot that would suggest this one is comparatively much different.
Please everyone, take a moment to unwad your panties before going on to the next part.
As far as viral epidemics in the past generation, the granddaddy of them all was the H1N1 virus with something like 280,000 dead worldwide, or about the number of people that would ordinarily die of other causes in any 8-hour period, over the course of more than a year. That, to me, is not a significant overall public danger, and sure enough, schools stayed open, events went on, and everything was more or less normal. In the US, it was something like 12,000 dead. And that was the biggest viral outbreak in modern history. Yet this is somehow going to be 150 times worse, based on ... ? Everything being presented until recently was that its contagion vector was lower than that of H1N1 and it was not particularly deadly either.
Based on doomsday projections, that's what. You follow the worst worst case every time, you'll be doing nothing but cowering from imagined disaster after imagined disaster. I will tell you exactly how long this will last, and that is until media fatigue sets in after about a month. You will have steady "living under the virus - is this the new normal?" stories for the next three weeks, which seems to be the determined freakout period ... then a week or so of "quarantine lifted, are things returning to normal?" and by then everyone will have realized that nothing much really happened and shuffle back off to being mad about Trump or something, which has become comparatively more interesting again.
The whole panic started out of public ignorance born out of an attention span insufficient for anything longer than a headline or a 15-second soundbite. And it will end due to public disinterest born out of an attention span insufficient for anything longer than a headline or a 15-second soundbite. But in the meantime, how dangerously irresponsible, and what a horrible precedent to set.
See you Space Cowboy ...
History has a better memory:
1918 Pandemic (H1N1 virus)
The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history. It was caused by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin. Although there is not universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, it spread worldwide during 1918-1919. In the United States, it was first identified in military personnel in spring 1918. It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.
Did you catch the part where it was modern history, like where electricity and medicine and things like that existed?
No, of course you didn't, because you're dumb.
Bringing up the 1918 flu in any seriousness here is the same as making a Hitler comparison - shows you are just ignoring reality and throwing out keywords for shock value. I had almost forgotten that you were a troll; my bad.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Like:
1918 Pandemic (H1N1 virus)
The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history. It was caused by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin. Although there is not universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, it spread worldwide during 1918-1919. In the United States, it was first identified in military personnel in spring 1918. It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States.
Array title="vader29 has a reputation beyond repute">
Array title="Shoes has a reputation beyond repute">
Amazing how "concerned" we are about a virus we have little control over and ignore things we can control with just a proper diet and exercise. I will also say a proper diet and exercise will give your immune system a boost which will help fight colds and flu.
Just think if the coronavirus was killing people every 37 seconds in the US like heart disease, yet no media hype and no threads about this here.
Heart Disease in the United States
- Heart disease is the leading cause of death for men, women, and people of most racial and ethnic groups in the United States.
- One person dies every 37 seconds in the United States from cardiovascular disease.
- About 647,000 Americans die from heart disease each year—that’s 1 in every 4 deaths.
- Heart disease costs the United States about $219 billion each year from 2014 to 2015.3 This includes the cost of health care services, medicines, and lost productivity due to death.
https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm
Last edited by Shoes; 03-14-2020 at 10:37 AM.
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
Sad story of a striving retail arbitrage entrepreneur victimized by suppression of free market price mechanisms
Mr. Colvin said he was simply fixing “inefficiencies in the marketplace.”... He thought about it more. “I honestly feel like it’s a public service,” he added. “I’m being paid for my public service.”....
“But I’m not looking to be in a situation where I make the front page of the news for being that guy who hoarded 20,000 bottles of sanitizer that I’m selling for 20 times what they cost me.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/t...gtype=Homepage
You may not have been looking to make the front page but you did - Heckuva job
Takes all kinds.Sad story of a striving retail arbitrage entrepreneur victimized by suppression of free market price mechanisms
Mr. Colvin said he was simply fixing “inefficiencies in the marketplace.”... He thought about it more. “I honestly feel like it’s a public service,” he added. “I’m being paid for my public service.”....
“But I’m not looking to be in a situation where I make the front page of the news for being that guy who hoarded 20,000 bottles of sanitizer that I’m selling for 20 times what they cost me.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/t...gtype=Homepage
You may not have been looking to make the front page but you did - Heckuva job
This is certainly one version of the outcome. I was just talking about this exact possible scenario last night. Others in the conversation made a similarly convincing case for the infection rate never lowering and this viruses ping ponging across the country for over a year and it being the 1918 flu (by any definition 1918 is the modern era but those of us raised on the internet just cant wrap our heads around that) or worse.
I think the difficulty is that if this all shakes out in the most positive way and the infection rate, morbidity numbers, and length of epidemic all stay low in the US; it is going to be hard to convince people what set of circumstances created those outcomes. One set of the populace (or more importantly the electorate) is going to be convinced that all of it was a complete and total over reaction and things would have turned out essentially the same with no changes from “normal” life. Another group will be convinced that all of the drastic measures flattened the curve and curbed the spread and were the driving forces behind the positive results. And a last group will be convinced it all had something to do with religion.
But, luckily we have entire sections of the medical and scientific community that devote their lives to understanding these types of things and they are and will continue to be able to demonstrate with math and science what did and did not work and why.
I maintain my opening position that this is all driven to a frenzied level of panic by the tone and tenor of the media coverage. But I do understand that the more drastic measures being implemented are simply sound and logical decisions when a population is under these types of conditions.
While I guess I appreciate the PSA from the CDC, Im not sure this is the the time or place for this to be brought up.
There are plenty of healthy people (myself included), with compromised systems, that work out every day to make sure that when things like this show up we are prepared. Growing up there was no such thing as COPD. My Doctor just said boy you get bronchitis a lot. At 59, I can guarantee if I were in Italy and got the virus, I would be a candidate to be pulled off the ventilator, and I couldnt argue.
So yes, our society is overweight, out of shape, in poor health, but lets put that aside and get through this. See if the cream rises to the top when this is all over. Maybe.....maybe not. Hope so.
Yes, that was what happened in the H1N1 virus outbreak from 100 years ago.
In the H1N1 virus outbreak from 10 years ago, even more people were infected, but there were 99 percent fewer deaths.
It's almost as if that provides an ideal comparison of the danger of a disease outbreak in a modern versus a less-than-modern society.
I guess now you can argue that aykchually 100 years ago still techincally counts as modern by this or that definition. But the thing about that is, anyone but an idiot can see there is a huge difference.
What this looks like is irresponsible fearmongering over something that affects a small fraction of 1 percent of the population, almost all of whom survive. Until there is any evidence that it is actually doing more than that, guess what, the stats say that all you're doing is guessing. I am sorry you took the bait so hard.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Gee. I wonder if there was any reason that military personnel were gathering in large numbers in late 1917 and early 1918? Then rotating those same personnel all over the globe? That maybe had something to do with a virus gaining a beachhead. So large gatherings and infected/carrier travel is maybe not ideal.
It's almost like 100 years later when a similar virus hits and the globe can actually enact quarantines and minimize community spread, the bottom fell out of the transmission rate.
The difference is not technology and science, but movement and interact of viral hosts.
Array title="Shoes has a reputation beyond repute">
Of course not, because American society has accepted heart disease as a "normal" way to die. Instead, let's consume ourselves with a flu virus that will vanish like the others on the history list. There is just something wrong when a person dies every 37 seconds in this country over a disease that can be prevented and all you hear is crickets. Instead, we are consumed with a flu virus in which the majority of people that contract it only have mild symptoms and recover. If our society was at their ideal weight, in shape and in good health the flu just might pass over them.
Modern day free market heroes. Then once he gets notoriety for it, suddenly he has an overwhelming desire to donate it all.Sad story of a striving retail arbitrage entrepreneur victimized by suppression of free market price mechanisms
Mr. Colvin said he was simply fixing “inefficiencies in the marketplace.”... He thought about it more. “I honestly feel like it’s a public service,” he added. “I’m being paid for my public service.”....
“But I’m not looking to be in a situation where I make the front page of the news for being that guy who hoarded 20,000 bottles of sanitizer that I’m selling for 20 times what they cost me.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/t...gtype=Homepage
You may not have been looking to make the front page but you did - Heckuva job
There were no quarantines in 2009. Things just carried on as usual, and the result was 99 percent fewer deaths.
As far as movement and interaction, there is far more of that today because of global air travel; the overall population is double or triple; and there are many times more large events. Again, all went on uninterrupted in the 2009 version. Same disease. No quarantines. More interactions. 99 percent fewer dead. Blind luck, I guess?
Or maybe it's that people are generally healthier, conditions are more sanitary, and that 100 years ago they didn't even have the first clue about even controlling the symptoms of basic illnesses.
Nah, it couldn't be that. Commence the panic.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute">
It takes a special skill set to engage in black market profiteering then give an interview to the New York Times about it, while helpfully giving the great visual for the story by posing in front of your hoard, and believe it is going to end well for you
Maybe he thought he would win the PR battle and Amazon would back off
Lets see. The NBA is shutdown. The NHL is shutdown. MLB is shutdown. Students at major colleges have been sent home. Large cities like NYC, Boston, etc., have shutdown their public school systems or are offering web based alternatives to many activities. Travel has been so severely impacted that tourism, and airlines are being grossly impacted. The president has ordered a national emmergency. So on and do forth. And you think this is all because people are concerned about a virus that might, might, effect a small fraction of 1 % of the population?
In all seriousness, the majority of deaths from "heart disease" might as well be called deaths from "old age." You get to your 70s or 80s, almost everyone has what could be called heart disease, just by way of all your organs being much less effective and sone amount of arterial hardening occuring in nearly everyone by that age.
More people are fat, but that is generally a better condition than being malnourished or starving, which were major issues 100 years ago. Life expectancy is at an all-time high. Our fat people live longer than most healthy people from a century ago.
Overall, the population today is much healthier than it was 100 years ago, simply because nearly everyone is well-fed. That basic fact is one of the very first things that influences your chances of survival from low-level communicable diseases. And probably why not one of them in recent times has been anywhere close to as bad. Add in some very rudimentary things we have learned about hydration, and in severe cases, things like draining fluid from the lungs, and it is very easy to see why these things are barely dangerous at all in the modern world.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Yes. That is exactly what an overreaction is. People have taken a virus that might, might affect a small fraction of 1% of the population, and - IN THEIR MINDS - created a global pandemic. Yet that does not change the fact that, here in the real world, it remains a virus that might, might affect a small fraction of 1% of the population. I mean, that's what the facts are, I don't know what else to tell you.
It is as if you don't understand that when someone says "people are overreacting," pointing out examples of more and more people overreacting in ways that affect broader and broader segments of life ... it actually proves my point, not yours.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Your posts belong on the funny pages.
Array title="Shoes has a reputation beyond repute">
I'm not even going to respond to this.
I mean, your entire argument is basically "Everyone's doin' it! Come on!!!"
I just feel bad for you.
See you Space Cowboy ...
More funny pages material.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
