Coronovirus IV

[T.Lex]

But...It's science espoused by scientists.

But if one trusts the flu numbers estimates, consistency dictates that one would trust the COVID estimates.

 

[jamil]

But if one trusts the flu numbers estimates, consistency dictates that one would trust the COVID estimates.

Not true. They know a lot more about seasonal flu than covid. Flu tracking is consistently done year by year. Look how many times they've changed the criteria for covid. How reliable are the tests they do for flu vs covid? That plays into the estimates as well. So I don't think you can relate one to the other to say that both are equally trustworthy. Also, the flu has not been politicized anywhere near the same level of magnitude. With people so divided on covid and policies around it, especially with a CDC that seems eager to lie "for the public good" there are plenty of more reasons to lie about covid than the flu, and plenty more reasons to distrust the numbers we hear compared to the flu.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

But if one trusts the flu numbers estimates, consistency dictates that one would trust the COVID estimates.

Except there isn't a monetary incentive for hospitals to treat flu cases. That makes me wary of the Covid numbers.

 

[jamil]

have any of those impacts mattered so far? I mean they closed schools when there were 0 cases in the county, only 1 case in all of the counties around us combined. The decision would rest on the superintendents, not the politicians. Schools that are in the red would see it as a lifeline, not having to run busses, etc.

I’ve talked to some parents, e.g. who attend our church, who say they will not be sending their kids back next year no matter what... too risky they say.

ETA: I could also see certain functions/activities restricted... like no or limited bussing, no extracurricular activities (or no/limited spectators), etc.

I really hope I’m wrong. I think it’s at least a real possibility, and you will see it at least some places (not necessarily nationally Or statewide).

-rvb

Online schools are going to see a boon in the coming year. I'm looking for some good ETF's in that sector to buy into.

 

[nonobaddog]

have any of those impacts mattered so far? I mean they closed schools when there were 0 cases in the county, only 1 case in all of the counties around us combined. The decision would rest on the superintendents, not the politicians. Schools that are in the red would see it as a lifeline, not having to run busses, etc.

I’ve talked to some parents, e.g. who attend our church, who say they will not be sending their kids back next year no matter what... too risky they say.

ETA: I could also see certain functions/activities restricted... like no or limited bussing, no extracurricular activities (or no/limited spectators), etc.

I really hope I’m wrong. I think it’s at least a real possibility, and you will see it at least some places (not necessarily nationally Or statewide).

-rvb

This coming year could be tough on those who put all their eggs in the athletic scholarship basket.

 

[nonobaddog]

Not true. They know a lot more about seasonal flu than covid. Flu tracking is consistently done year by year. Look how many times they've changed the criteria for covid. How reliable are the tests they do for flu vs covid? That plays into the estimates as well. So I don't think you can relate one to the other to say that both are equally trustworthy. Also, the flu has not been politicized anywhere near the same level of magnitude. With people so divided on covid and policies around it, especially with a CDC that seems eager to lie "for the public good" there are plenty of more reasons to lie about covid than the flu, and plenty more reasons to distrust the numbers we hear compared to the flu.

We know the flu numbers are a guess. They never claimed anything other than an estimate. The chinese virus numbers are supposed to be a count which would be more accurate than an estimate if only they knew how to count.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But if one trusts the flu numbers estimates, consistency dictates that one would trust the COVID estimates.

Not true. They know a lot more about seasonal flu than covid. Flu tracking is consistently done year by year. Look how many times they've changed the criteria for covid. How reliable are the tests they do for flu vs covid? That plays into the estimates as well. So I don't think you can relate one to the other to say that both are equally trustworthy. Also, the flu has not been politicized anywhere near the same level of magnitude. With people so divided on covid and policies around it, especially with a CDC that seems eager to lie "for the public good" there are plenty of more reasons to lie about covid than the flu, and plenty more reasons to distrust the numbers we hear compared to the flu.

Yeah...no...this presupposes all things being equal....which as Jamil points out, they're not.

 

[T.Lex]

Not true. They know a lot more about seasonal flu than covid. Flu tracking is consistently done year by year.

How do you know?

Also, the flu has not been politicized anywhere near the same level of magnitude. With people so divided on covid and policies around it, especially with a CDC that seems eager to lie "for the public good" there are plenty of more reasons to lie about covid than the flu, and plenty more reasons to distrust the numbers we hear compared to the flu.

Hold up. Every year the CDC publishes dire estimates about the flu, propping up the profits of the vaccine manufacturers, while admitting that in any given year, the vaccine might not be effective, without really knowing from year to year how effective it is.

Is it less politicized, or is the US public just accustomed to the cries of "wolf" and we do (or don't do) what we're told about the vaccine.

Sure, we collectively know more about the flu strains. But, if one assumes the CDC has integrity in the flu estimates based on available information, then IMHO consistency still requires faith in the CDC integrity for COVID issues based on available information.

The CDC does not appear to be politicizing COVID. The politicians are.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We know the flu numbers are a guess. They never claimed anything other than an estimate. The chinese virus numbers are supposed to be a count which would be more accurate than an estimate if only they knew how to count.

How to count is easy. What to count as what is where the problem lies.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah...no...this presupposes all things being equal....which as Jamil points out, they're not.

If one concedes the flu and COVID are inequal, then how does citing flu estimate numbers regarding COVID make any sense?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If one concedes the flu and COVID are inequal, then how does citing flu estimate numbers regarding COVID make any sense?

You mean the scientists espousing scientific findings are not doing science in a scientific fashion?

 

[jamil]

How do you know?


Hold up. Every year the CDC publishes dire estimates about the flu, propping up the profits of the vaccine manufacturers, while admitting that in any given year, the vaccine might not be effective, without really knowing from year to year how effective it is.

Is it less politicized, or is the US public just accustomed to the cries of "wolf" and we do (or don't do) what we're told about the vaccine.

Sure, we collectively know more about the flu strains. But, if one assumes the CDC has integrity in the flu estimates based on available information, then IMHO consistency still requires faith in the CDC integrity for COVID issues based on available information.

The CDC does not appear to be politicizing COVID. The politicians are.

Bull****. If you're trying to argue that the same conditions exist for estimating the flu as covid, just wow. Even if we don't consider the political bull****--WHICH THE CDC IS AS GUILTY AS ANY--there are plenty more opportunities to get things wrong with covid, because nearly nothing is known about that compared with the flu. But then add the political bull****, which involves way more at stake than merely trying to boost vaccine sales, I have to assume you have both eyes closed.

 

[T.Lex]

You mean the scientists espousing scientific findings are not doing science in a scientific fashion?

1. I was talking about INGOers and other people who compare COVID to the flu.

B. Broadly speaking, the scientists doing science on COVID appear to be stating their scientific findings in sciency ways as the science is being done. So, not every theory will be proven correct. Different discoveries will be made that contradict or undermine prior assumptions. That's life. That's science. That's public policy.

USians deserve the best information available to make the most informed decisions, even if that information is incomplete.

IMHO the real problem lies with certain public figures who leverage appropriate fear and uncertainty for personal and/or political gain. But, that's the nature of that particular beast.

 

[Ingomike]

But if one trusts the flu numbers estimates, consistency dictates that one would trust the COVID estimates.

First, one must admit that our institutions have been politicized and it is likely none of them can be fully trusted. It really comes down to individual issues, are there logical reasons to play with flu number? I have wondered if the reason the "it's not the flu" was so strong is because they have been messing with the flu numbers to get more funding for years and just possibly C-19 is exponentially worse than the flu really is.

However, my example to the contrary, there currently is more reason to politicize C-19 than flu. So I disagree that if one trusts one CDC number, one must trust another. It really comes down to what is to gain on individual issues...

 

[T.Lex]

Bull****. If you're trying to argue that the same conditions exist for estimating the flu as covid, just wow.

You know that's not what I'm saying. Nice straw man, Pam.

Even if we don't consider the political bull****--WHICH THE CDC IS AS GUILTY AS ANY--there are plenty more opportunities to get things wrong with covid, because nearly nothing is known about that compared with the flu. But then add the political bull****, which involves way more at stake than merely trying to boost vaccine sales, I have to assume you have both eyes closed.

The only part about that I'm curious about (including the unnecessary ad hom) is the part about the CDC and political bull****. Upon what do you base that conclusion?

 

[jamil]

1. I was talking about INGOers and other people who compare COVID to the flu.

B. Broadly speaking, the scientists doing science on COVID appear to be stating their scientific findings in sciency ways as the science is being done. So, not every theory will be proven correct. Different discoveries will be made that contradict or undermine prior assumptions. That's life. That's science. That's public policy.

USians deserve the best information available to make the most informed decisions, even if that information is incomplete.

IMHO the real problem lies with certain public figures who leverage appropriate fear and uncertainty for personal and/or political gain. But, that's the nature of that particular beast.

Okay. So wait. Are you now saying that the estimating process between covid and the flu are unequal now?

 

[jamil]

You know that's not what I'm saying. Nice straw man, Pam.



The only part about that I'm curious about (including the unnecessary ad hom) is the part about the CDC and political bull****. Upon what do you base that conclusion?

Inconsistent policy. Policy that's incongruent with what's known at the time. And, they've been engaged in the fear mongering as much as any. Doesn't help that they went along with the "doesn't spread to humans" bull**** at the start of this when there was evidence to the contrary.

 

[T.Lex]

Okay. So wait. Are you now saying that the estimating process between covid and the flu are unequal now?

You're reading alot of words into my posts that don't exist this morning.

Let's go back. The point was regurgitated that "this is just the flu." My counterpoint was that the flu numbers are just estimates, like COVID numbers. And the CDC is one repository for both (the primary one for the flu, from what I can tell).

When I learned that the flu numbers are just estimates, that was the final straw breaking the "its just the flu" argument. The comparison is absurd.

Arguably, we know more about how many people have died from COVID than the flu.

But no, obviously, the processes are different. The common factor in the IJTF argument is the CDC. But, the inconsistency is trusting the CDC for one but not the other.

 

[Ingomike]

If one concedes the flu and COVID are inequal, then how does citing flu estimate numbers regarding COVID make any sense?

I have also compared C-19 mortality rates to drunk driving etc. Comparisons do not indicate they are equal other than mortality...

Let me simplify it for you, if the public doesn't bat an eye over x number of deaths per year for y, why get their panties in a bunch over x number of C-19 deaths?

 

[T.Lex]

Inconsistent policy. Policy that's incongruent with what's known at the time. And, they've been engaged in the fear mongering as much as any. Doesn't help that they went along with the "doesn't spread to humans" bull**** at the start of this when there was evidence to the contrary.

Inconsistent policy? Trump's taken the lead on that. The CDC - from what I'm aware of - consistently stated the known risks. Evidence to the contrary? Sure, there's always contrary evidence (like whether hydroxychloroquine is effective).

The CDC has many faults, many related to reporting and tracking. One thing they've been pretty good about is putting the known facts out there. They aren't always right, and certainly not prompt, but the fearmongering is done by the politicians. Because that's a motivator.