Do you see a 2020 season happening?

hitta · 04-08-2020, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by burningmetal

I don't know, for the life of me, why any of us are bothering to talk to you, but here I go again: You sit there and ADMIT that you picked a model, even though it was brought to your attention multiple times that the model you used was outdated and long since proven inaccurate... And you say "The only reason I picked the models was to show to what extent the virus would spread".

Everything you said from that point was complete rubbish. You can't use a model, that was PROVEN to be faulty, and say "well, I was just using that to show how it would spread". Are you kidding me? How stupid do you think I am? Your whole premise is based on a broken model, and you think you can just put it back together and make it show something accurate? You have no idea what you're even saying, and neither do any of the rest of us, because you're literally just making things up as you go.

And I did not say the virus would be gone by the spring. It already is spring, first of all. I said that as the spring "settles in" the virus will "keep dying", as it has begun to do. I said it might be years before it's 100% gone. The point was that it will be easily manageable once we've come to the end of this cycle in the next couple of months. And that is good enough. The flu comes back every year. No one claims at the end of a flu season that kills between 60-80 thousand people that the virus will not return the next year, and yet we've always kept our normal way of life going.

Your doomsday rhetoric would have us all believe that we can NEVER leave our homes again, because it will just come back. Why? Why would it come back, based on people coming out of their homes, who presumably will not have the virus, considering we're all being quarantined? You make no sense.

This virus lasts on surfaces, supposedly, a little longer than the flu. Not weeks, or months, or years longer. The heat will kill it. The vast majority of it. And the only way for it to get airborne is for people to cough and sneeze it into the air. But there won't be very many carriers within the next couple of months. I know you would have us believe that you are some kind of viral expert, but you clearly are not. And neither am I, by the way. I just have a little common sense, and I don't rely on faulty models to make an argument.

The model that I used wasn't outdated, Ferguson still stands by it completely if lockdown is lifted. If anything he has become even more pessimistic if social distancing doesn't continue cause he thinks the virus is a bit more transmissible.

Surfaces aren't even a primary source of spread, people are. The virus on surfaces or even if it's on your hands is very unlikely to infect you. It is mainly person to person transmission through air. The humidity can't kill something that is inside of someone else. A person can go a day or two and test negative and still have the virus because the virus load in their nasal passages is too low to detect. After this wave, we'll get imported cases and the whole process will begin again. You act as if there is no historical precedent for this. It's doing what most influenza pandemics have done, gone and come in waves. The Lancet study pretty much confirms this isn't over and is pretty much impossible to stop multiple waves.

Also, I don't want people to stay in their homes. The economy would fall apart. There has to be some sort of plan. We don't have a plan. You can either send the younger people back into the work force, get them infected... maybe like 20-30% which would slow down the rate of transmission quite substantially. Or you can isolation dance and go in and out of lockdown for a long period of time. We haven't even had a significant portion of our population get the virus. Why would it be more manageable the second time? Because of the heat? There have been several coronaviruses that have thrived in the heat (Mers, Sars). You are making assumptions on things that historical data doesn't back up. When a virus is transmissible from person to person through the air, it makes it very hard for the heat and humidity to stop it. We don't have to have 1.6 million people die, but if we prematurely declare victory and everyone goes out and doesn't give a **** we're going to end up with a lot of infections.

04-08-2020, 10:11 PM	#11
hitta 1000 Posts + Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1,340	Re: Do you see a 2020 season happening? Originally Posted by burningmetal I don't know, for the life of me, why any of us are bothering to talk to you, but here I go again: You sit there and ADMIT that you picked a model, even though it was brought to your attention multiple times that the model you used was outdated and long since proven inaccurate... And you say "The only reason I picked the models was to show to what extent the virus would spread". Everything you said from that point was complete rubbish. You can't use a model, that was PROVEN to be faulty, and say "well, I was just using that to show how it would spread". Are you kidding me? How stupid do you think I am? Your whole premise is based on a broken model, and you think you can just put it back together and make it show something accurate? You have no idea what you're even saying, and neither do any of the rest of us, because you're literally just making things up as you go. And I did not say the virus would be gone by the spring. It already is spring, first of all. I said that as the spring "settles in" the virus will "keep dying", as it has begun to do. I said it might be years before it's 100% gone. The point was that it will be easily manageable once we've come to the end of this cycle in the next couple of months. And that is good enough. The flu comes back every year. No one claims at the end of a flu season that kills between 60-80 thousand people that the virus will not return the next year, and yet we've always kept our normal way of life going. Your doomsday rhetoric would have us all believe that we can NEVER leave our homes again, because it will just come back. Why? Why would it come back, based on people coming out of their homes, who presumably will not have the virus, considering we're all being quarantined? You make no sense. This virus lasts on surfaces, supposedly, a little longer than the flu. Not weeks, or months, or years longer. The heat will kill it. The vast majority of it. And the only way for it to get airborne is for people to cough and sneeze it into the air. But there won't be very many carriers within the next couple of months. I know you would have us believe that you are some kind of viral expert, but you clearly are not. And neither am I, by the way. I just have a little common sense, and I don't rely on faulty models to make an argument. The model that I used wasn't outdated, Ferguson still stands by it completely if lockdown is lifted. If anything he has become even more pessimistic if social distancing doesn't continue cause he thinks the virus is a bit more transmissible. Surfaces aren't even a primary source of spread, people are. The virus on surfaces or even if it's on your hands is very unlikely to infect you. It is mainly person to person transmission through air. The humidity can't kill something that is inside of someone else. A person can go a day or two and test negative and still have the virus because the virus load in their nasal passages is too low to detect. After this wave, we'll get imported cases and the whole process will begin again. You act as if there is no historical precedent for this. It's doing what most influenza pandemics have done, gone and come in waves. The Lancet study pretty much confirms this isn't over and is pretty much impossible to stop multiple waves. Also, I don't want people to stay in their homes. The economy would fall apart. There has to be some sort of plan. We don't have a plan. You can either send the younger people back into the work force, get them infected... maybe like 20-30% which would slow down the rate of transmission quite substantially. Or you can isolation dance and go in and out of lockdown for a long period of time. We haven't even had a significant portion of our population get the virus. Why would it be more manageable the second time? Because of the heat? There have been several coronaviruses that have thrived in the heat (Mers, Sars). You are making assumptions on things that historical data doesn't back up. When a virus is transmissible from person to person through the air, it makes it very hard for the heat and humidity to stop it. We don't have to have 1.6 million people die, but if we prematurely declare victory and everyone goes out and doesn't give a **** we're going to end up with a lot of infections. Rugby Saint II likes this.
hitta 1000 Posts + Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1,340