By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread

JRPGfan on 18 April 2020
Nautilus said:
Conina said:

You wanna defend his bollocks "0.001%"?

And it is 157k so far with only 2.3 million known cases. Without these lockdowns / "social distancing" there would already be much more and without trying to slow down the spreading, numbers would rise exponentially.

The 0,001% was just an example of how low these numbers are compared to any other disease and problem the world have, as the numbers I gave you showed.I'm not trying to justify anything.I don't have to.We nevber had lockdown for any of these disease that are arguably far more deadly and serious, and humanity is just fine.I don't need to downplay the lockdown, reality is doing that for me.

Plus, the lockdown is far more efficicent than you think.Why do you think that the numbers keep rising even when most countries have this lockdown in effect?Simple: Most people were already infected way before the lockdown was placed in effect.So in this situation you have one family member infected placed at all times close to the other family members that are not infected.Remember, this virus has a 2 week long incubation.For this lockdown to truly have an effect, it should have been put into effect in January or early February, not mid march.But that's just me.

Right now its "only" a small issue that killed ~160,000-200,000 people.
The issue is, right now theres maybe only been like ~23million cases of infections (2,3m x 10).

Imagine what happends if say this is allowed to spread and hit those 50-60% infections of the world populations.

If 23million = ~160k deaths..... how badly would the world be off, if like 1/2 on the planet got this?


Also 160,000 deaths out of ~23million cases = 0.7%.

7,8+ billion people x half the world infected x 0.7% = 28 million deaths (world wide)

Thats assumeing that mortality rates dont rise, if spread gets that bad.
They would likely double atleast, imo.

This is why there are lockdowns/shutdowns.
World leaders dont want this virus to kill like 56 million people.

"Plus, the lockdown is far more efficicent than you think.Why do you think that the numbers keep rising even when most countries have this lockdown in effect?" - Nautilus

Because people are "bad" at avoiding getting it, or spreading it to others.
People still go outsides to do things, even in a lockdown, you cant get around stepping out to get food and stuff.
Theres still "essential workers", so a lockdown is never going to 100% stop spread.

If you actually did manage to lock every person inside their house/building, then within 3-4 weeks this virus could be defeated.
It only lives inside the human body (it cannot survive outsides more than a few days).

The problem is we dont live in a perfect world, where its possible for no one to ever leave their house, for that long.



Nautilus on 18 April 2020
CaptainExplosion said:
Nautilus said:

So you are saying that you have the right to kill people by starving them of money?

So you are saying that you value the economy over human lives?

When the economy didctates wether you will have food on your table, or if you are going to have a good health care that will save your life, it's exactly what I'm saying.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Lafiel on 18 April 2020
Nautilus said:

You wanna play the number game?Fine, let's do it:

According to WHO, 5.6 million kids under age five have died in 2016, nearly 15 k every day.

According to WHO, number estimates places malaria cases in around 216 million in 2016 alone, with a mortality rate of 28%.

According to WHO, 56% of deaths in Africa are due to communicable nutrinional deaths.In another words, deaths that could be prevented.

According to WHO, 1 million pregnant woman had active syphilis infection in 2016 and had at risk birth due to that.

According to WHO, around 800k people die from suicide every year around the world(about 1 death every 40 seconds)

According to WHO, around 37,9 million people around the world have AIDS as of 2018.God knows how many died because of it.

no, about 400k ppl die of Malaria each year out of ~200M infections, so that's a mortality rate of ~0.2% link



Nautilus on 18 April 2020
JRPGfan said:
Nautilus said:

The 0,001% was just an example of how low these numbers are compared to any other disease and problem the world have, as the numbers I gave you showed.I'm not trying to justify anything.I don't have to.We nevber had lockdown for any of these disease that are arguably far more deadly and serious, and humanity is just fine.I don't need to downplay the lockdown, reality is doing that for me.

Plus, the lockdown is far more efficicent than you think.Why do you think that the numbers keep rising even when most countries have this lockdown in effect?Simple: Most people were already infected way before the lockdown was placed in effect.So in this situation you have one family member infected placed at all times close to the other family members that are not infected.Remember, this virus has a 2 week long incubation.For this lockdown to truly have an effect, it should have been put into effect in January or early February, not mid march.But that's just me.

Right now its "only" a small issue that killed ~160,000-200,000 people.
The issue is, right now theres maybe only been like ~23million cases of infections (2,3m x 10).

Imagine what happends if say this is allowed to spread and hit those 50-60% infections of the world populations.

If 23million = ~160k deaths..... how badly would the world be off, if like 1/2 on the planet got this?


Also 160,000 deaths out of ~23million cases = 0.7%.

7,8+ billion people x half the world infected x 0.7% = 28 million deaths (world wide)

Thats assumeing that mortality rates dont rise, if spread gets that bad.
They would likely double atleast, imo.

This is why there are lockdowns/shutdowns.
World leaders dont want this virus to kill like 56 million people.

"Plus, the lockdown is far more efficicent than you think.Why do you think that the numbers keep rising even when most countries have this lockdown in effect?" - Nautilus

Because people are "bad" at avoiding getting it, or spreading it to others.
People still go outsides to do things, even in a lockdown, you cant get around stepping out to get food and stuff.
Theres still "essential workers", so a lockdown is never going to 100% stop spread.

If you actually did manage to lock every person inside their house/building, then within 3-4 weeks this virus could be defeated.
It only lives inside the human body (it cannot survive outsides more than a few days).

The problem is we dont live in a perfect world, where its possible for no one to ever leave their house, for that long.

I will stand by what I said that most people were already infected before the lockdown was in effect, so that estimation of yours, in this cenario, would be null, because we would already be in the "worst case scenario", but alas...

If people is really getting infected because they are not respecting the lockdown, then the lockdown itself is flawed.What I mean is, you can plan the best plan in the world, but it will serve you nothing if people don't stick to the plan.If the lockdown is not being respected, it means that you haven't concocted a plan that adapts to the culture and behaviour of the place that the lockdown will affect.And the only good said lockdown is doing is destroying the economy.At least based on what you said.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus on 18 April 2020
Lafiel said:
Nautilus said:

You wanna play the number game?Fine, let's do it:

According to WHO, 5.6 million kids under age five have died in 2016, nearly 15 k every day.

According to WHO, number estimates places malaria cases in around 216 million in 2016 alone, with a mortality rate of 28%.

According to WHO, 56% of deaths in Africa are due to communicable nutrinional deaths.In another words, deaths that could be prevented.

According to WHO, 1 million pregnant woman had active syphilis infection in 2016 and had at risk birth due to that.

According to WHO, around 800k people die from suicide every year around the world(about 1 death every 40 seconds)

According to WHO, around 37,9 million people around the world have AIDS as of 2018.God knows how many died because of it.

no, about 400k ppl die of Malaria each year with ~200M infections, so that's a mortality rate of ~0.2% link

https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria/GHO/malaria



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Lafiel on 18 April 2020
Nautilus said:
Lafiel said:

no, about 400k ppl die of Malaria each year with ~200M infections, so that's a mortality rate of ~0.2% link

https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria/GHO/malaria

that's the estimated decrease of mortality since 2010, not the mortality rate.......



xMetroid on 18 April 2020

If anyone is interested, the pre-show started for the Togheter at Home : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87-ZFjLfBAQ
Show is on TV at 8pm to 10pm EST (Lady Gaga, Celine Dion, RollingStones, Taylor Swift, etc)
Preshow is 2pm to 8pm (Niall Horan, Hozier, Kesha, etc)



Torillian on 18 April 2020
Nautilus said:
JRPGfan said:

Right now its "only" a small issue that killed ~160,000-200,000 people.
The issue is, right now theres maybe only been like ~23million cases of infections (2,3m x 10).

Imagine what happends if say this is allowed to spread and hit those 50-60% infections of the world populations.

If 23million = ~160k deaths..... how badly would the world be off, if like 1/2 on the planet got this?


Also 160,000 deaths out of ~23million cases = 0.7%.

7,8+ billion people x half the world infected x 0.7% = 28 million deaths (world wide)

Thats assumeing that mortality rates dont rise, if spread gets that bad.
They would likely double atleast, imo.

This is why there are lockdowns/shutdowns.
World leaders dont want this virus to kill like 56 million people.

"Plus, the lockdown is far more efficicent than you think.Why do you think that the numbers keep rising even when most countries have this lockdown in effect?" - Nautilus

Because people are "bad" at avoiding getting it, or spreading it to others.
People still go outsides to do things, even in a lockdown, you cant get around stepping out to get food and stuff.
Theres still "essential workers", so a lockdown is never going to 100% stop spread.

If you actually did manage to lock every person inside their house/building, then within 3-4 weeks this virus could be defeated.
It only lives inside the human body (it cannot survive outsides more than a few days).

The problem is we dont live in a perfect world, where its possible for no one to ever leave their house, for that long.

I will stand by what I said that most people were already infected before the lockdown was in effect, so that estimation of yours, in this cenario, would be null, because we would already be in the "worst case scenario", but alas...

If people is really getting infected because they are not respecting the lockdown, then the lockdown itself is flawed.What I mean is, you can plan the best plan in the world, but it will serve you nothing if people don't stick to the plan.If the lockdown is not being respected, it means that you haven't concocted a plan that adapts to the culture and behaviour of the place that the lockdown will affect.And the only good said lockdown is doing is destroying the economy.At least based on what you said.

So you think everyone already has/had Corona? What are you basing this off of?



...

Conina on 18 April 2020
Nautilus said:

According to WHO, number estimates places malaria cases in around 216 million in 2016 alone, with a mortality rate of 28%.

https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/malaria/GHO/malaria

Perhaps you should read the text instead of just looking at numbers.

The mortality rate of malaria wasn't 28% of 216 million in 2016 (that would have been 60.48 million deaths).

The decrease of the mortality rate between 2010 and 2016 was 28%, so the chances of survival got better.

435,000 malaria deaths / 216 million malaria cases = 0.2% mortality rate, not 28% mortality rate.

And do you think that the number of covid-19 deaths will be lower than 435,000 at the end of this year if the number is already at 157,000 in April, with over 1.5 million active cases and the number of new infections is still rising?

Last edited by Conina - on 18 April 2020

jason1637 on 18 April 2020

There is a discussion to be had about the economic effects of the virus but its irresponsible to suggest that wer reverse a lot of the current restrictions because that would overwhelm our healthcare system and that's gonna end up effecting yhe economy negatively.