pglaves
#13338
Or not, depending upon whether precautions and other conditions built into the models are ignored.
-
Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password. If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?
-
Beginning April 1st, and running through April 30th, there is a new 2024 BMW MOA Election discussion area within The Club section of the forum. Within this forum area is also a sticky post that provides the ground rules for participating in the Election forum area. Also, the candidates statements are provided. Please read before joining the conversation, because the rules are very specific to maintain civility.
The Election forum is here: Election Forum
Tips and considerations during this time of National Emergency
- Thread starter Omega Man
- Start date
- Status
Or not, depending upon whether precautions and other conditions built into the models are ignored.
jr31
New member
Since you seem to be having trouble interpreting your own argument, I'll help you out.
548,048 dead/30,150,662 cases is 1 dead for every 55cases.
Spoiler alert! This is NOT miniscule. Could you imagine that if every 55th time you rode your bike, that you would DIE! Not many people would be riding. These are TERRIBLE odds! A person would be considered suicidial to think those are good odds.
1 in 55 is NOT overwhelming survival odds as you imply.
Fact? Proof? Science? Data? Nope. Just arithmetic.
What's 1/55?
You're welcome.
jr31
New member
It's third grade arithmetic.
It's a worse survival rate than the first 15 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan".
Yet you can't bring yourself to execute that arithmetic. Sort of makes the point. Actually, not sort of. Completely.
Was Saving Private Ryan a motion picture? Are you equating this (not really) deadly virus with a fictionalization of a bloody beach landing? And for fun, what were the numbers deployed in the actual beach landing portrayed? If I bring you that math problem, will you avoid the answer as assiduously as you do the other? Let's see.
What's ≈3,500/43,250?
You think that's the same as 1/55?
Spoiler alert: it's not.
jr31
New member
Nicely done.
And the etymology of percent is, essentially, per hundred.
Which means 98.2 people of 100 survive this affliction. That's an overwhelming survival rate. If you tell a COVID victim that they will live, you're going to be right slightly more than 98 times out of 100. Indeed, if you tell 100 victims that it's deadly, you'll be wrong more than 98 times.
For my part, that doesn't sound a whole lot like something that merits putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work, canceling Christmas and motorcycle rallies and whatever else, or lockdown directives (which are somewhat counter-intuitive if one buys the distancing mythology).
And so it is that I (and others) are reasonably disappointed to see those things that make life worth living (e.g., free association with people we like and love, engaging in activities we enjoy on the terms under which we care to enjoy them, and so on) irreparably mal-reengineered. This is, of course just an opinion.
Some folks like a new normal. Some enjoy being malevolent do-gooders (e.g., yelling hysterically at mask-free people). Seems a lot like a religion to me. Again just an opinion.
Except for that math part. That's not an opinion.
So, in terms of "tips and considerations during this time of National Emergency", I assert there is no National Emergency to consider. There is (98 times out of 100) nothing to see here.
A thought experiment:Take six identical revolvers. Put 1 bullet in one revolver (1 in 60 odds). Have someone lay the revolvers on a table. How many time would you feel comfortable grabbing one and without spinning the cylinder, and only useing any one revolver six pulls, point it at you or a loved one and pull the trigger? 20? 10? 5? 1?
Where are the odds miniscule? When do they become too high? When death is involved, most peoples risk threshold is pretty low. 1 in 55 are bad odds. Most people would make an effort to make the odds better. The easiest and most effective way of keeping from dying from Covid is doing what you can to not get it in the first place.
1 in 55 = 1/55 = .0182 = 1.82%
jr31
New member
Take six identical revolvers. Put 1 bullet in one revolver (1 in 60 odds). Have someone lay the revolvers on a table. How many time would you feel comfortable grabbing one and without spinning the cylinder, and only useing any one revolver six pulls, point it at you or a loved one and pull the trigger? 20? 10? 5? 1?
Where are the odds miniscule? When do they become too high? When death is involved, most peoples risk threshold is pretty low. 1 in 55 are bad odds. Most people would make an effort to make the odds better. The easiest and most effective way of keeping from dying from Covid is doing what you can to not get it in the first place.
1 in 55 = 1/55 = .0182 = 1.82%
98.2 times. Now, I don't generally recommend pointing revolvers at oneself or another, but people do that. What would be the upside of that event? Would it mean I (or they) could be with people without some required face mask? Could I (or they) subsequently travel where I want when I want? Could I (or they) drink a beer in a pub? Could my (or their) children go to school? Could I (or they) get an appointment with a doctor for a cancer screening? Could I (or they) visit with an ailing mother or father or sibling? Could I (or they) keep a livelihood (job)? So, as with most things, there are gives and takes. In a 98.2/100 model, to err on the side of the 1.8 is to err.
The odds never become too high when people are free to protect themselves (wear a hazmat suit, stay inside forever, etc.) in the ways they see fit (not demand others behave a certain way).
You're right. 1 in 55 are bad odds. That is, it is terribly unlikely that you won't be in the 54. The odds are bad (you said it) that you will die from THE VIRUS!!! or from a trigger pull on one of the revolvers in the example you gave. Bad.
Last edited:
gregfeeler
Dances With Sheep
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
All this percentage analysis is well and fine, but it is missing several overriding considerations.
1. Whatever the death/survival rate, those affected are not randomly (i.e. evenly) distributed across the population. This is a highly contagious disease and the more people associate closely the higher the infection rate. So, a whole cluster of people having beers in a bar can come down with this while a whole church congregation which suspended meetings all avoided infections and fatalities. THIS is one reason why social distancing and masking mandates save lives. Behaviors affect infection rates and deaths, and behaviors can be managed, so it's only rational to do so.
2. All the arguments I've heard on this thread claiming that Covid is no big deal are only appropriate for a situation where the individual is the only one affected by their choices. But, with a contagious disease it's just the opposite. Everyone else is affected by your choice to walk around spreading the disease. Whatever the mortality rate - YOU don't have the right to expose others to the risk. Period. There is NO example of that "right" in any other context. If it were otherwise we wouldn't have laws against drunk driving.
3. The statistics which are now available and being tossed around to prove one point or the other did not exist a year ago. No one knew then - especially self-appointed microbiologists - just how fast and far this virus would spread, or how it would affect large populations. There was no playbook for a global pandemic so the only rational choice was to go with very high levels of caution and containment based on models developed by governments and health organizations. Anything less would be criminally negligent.
4. The first rule of applying statistical data is that in some situations percentages matter, and in others absolute numbers matter, but you must consider and discuss both. And when you see someone using only one metric or the other, they are invariably hiding something. To say, "You only have a 1.8% of dying from Covid" sounds reassuring. But, it's equally true that 1.8% of the U.S. population of 328,200,000 people is 5,907,600, which doesn't sound nearly as insignificant. The only reason why we have seen only 10% of those deaths so far is because of containment actions taken over the last year. Therefore, logically many of the Covid-deniers are only around today to do their complaining because of the lockdowns, masking mandates, and social distancing policies they are so incensed about.
All this percentage analysis is well and fine, but it is missing several overriding considerations.
1. Whatever the death/survival rate, those affected are not randomly (i.e. evenly) distributed across the population. This is a highly contagious disease and the more people associate closely the higher the infection rate. So, a whole cluster of people having beers in a bar can come down with this while a whole church congregation which suspended meetings all avoided infections and fatalities. THIS is one reason why social distancing and masking mandates save lives. Behaviors affect infection rates and deaths, and behaviors can be managed, so it's only rational to do so.
2. All the arguments I've heard on this thread claiming that Covid is no big deal are only appropriate for a situation where the individual is the only one affected by their choices. But, with a contagious disease it's just the opposite. Everyone else is affected by your choice to walk around spreading the disease. Whatever the mortality rate - YOU don't have the right to expose others to the risk. Period. There is NO example of that "right" in any other context. If it were otherwise we wouldn't have laws against drunk driving.
3. The statistics which are now available and being tossed around to prove one point or the other did not exist a year ago. No one knew then - especially self-appointed microbiologists - just how fast and far this virus would spread, or how it would affect large populations. There was no playbook for a global pandemic so the only rational choice was to go with very high levels of caution and containment based on models developed by governments and health organizations. Anything less would be criminally negligent.
4. The first rule of applying statistical data is that in some situations percentages matter, and in others absolute numbers matter, but you must consider and discuss both. And when you see someone using only one metric or the other, they are invariably hiding something. To say, "You only have a 1.8% of dying from Covid" sounds reassuring. But, it's equally true that 1.8% of the U.S. population of 328,200,000 people is 5,907,600, which doesn't sound nearly as insignificant. The only reason why we have seen only 10% of those deaths so far is because of containment actions taken over the last year. Therefore, logically many of the Covid-deniers are only around today to do their complaining because of the lockdowns, masking mandates, and social distancing policies they are so incensed about.
cruisincruzan
Ute's Chauffeur
Although mortality rate is most often discussed, getting seriously ill even if you survive is pretty miserable. Weeks on a ventilator with all of the complications associated with it, patients with long term Covid symptoms that we still don’t know what it’s going to mean years down the line. Most people won’t die or get seriously ill, but those that do have an outsized impact on society. Stay safe and please get vaccinated.
jr31
New member
In a word, no.
Highly contagious diseases have been around forever. And will be. This happens to be among the less lethal contagious diseases. In this way, the hysterical reaction to it and the lasting reverberations of that hysteria are wildly outsized.
The rights one has include those protections one decides to take against known vectors. That is, if one feels that this disease is particularly dangerous and deadly, that's fine. It is up to YOU, not others, to protect YOU, especially when you feel they aren't doing a good job of protecting you. You have NO right to force another to change anything about their behavior when that behavior consists of them living as part of the human condition (which includes viruses), especially when there are no (z-e-r-o) data suggesting that NPIs (e.g., masks, lockdowns, shutdowns) have delivered any protection. The best protection, in fact, may very well be to get sick and recover (which is highly likely). Barring that, YOU are welcome to stay inside, quit your job, stop seeing people, and shop only Amazon. Others should not be constrained by your fears (especially when so radically biased in favor of your survival and against your fear of sickness/death). Any demand that others care for you in ways that defy the human condition are both egregious and nefarious.
The only rational reaction in view of a lack of knowledge is not to act as if you have that knowledge. Conjuring up a whole reordering of human interaction was unwise then and now; it would be unwise in the face of an even more virulent and (actually) deadly disease. Not grossly overreacting (just to be "safe") isn't criminal negligence; it's rationality.
The easiest is the last. This assertion cannot be falsified. "It would have been worse!" That's invalid on its face if only because it cannot be proven. Worse for this line of logic, what do all of the following depicted locations have in common in the way of reactions to the virus in question? https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases-50-states. Virtually nothing. So, why the similar curves in almost every location? Because virus is gonna virus. (If you can get that page to update, fine; it won't resolve for me right now, but I expect a newer version to reflect these symmetrical trends across the states.)
There is nothing to deny with THE VIRUS!!! It's not nearly as deadly/scary as billed. It is, by the numbers, no big deal. Many people (weirdly) wish it were. Beyond that, if all Americans were infected and that population suffered a 1.8% death rate that would be a perfectly acceptable risk in terms of allowing people to live their lives and die their deaths unfettered. The fallout from the histrionic reaction is, in my view, absolutely grotesque. No national emergency. No emergency whatever.
akbeemer
SURVIVOR
Depending on the outcome, people have been charged and convicted of reckless endangerment or manslaughter for knowingly having AIDs and having unprotected sex with an unwitting partner. People do have a reasonable expectation that others will not act in reckless manner that endangers their well being.
gregfeeler
Dances With Sheep
I marvel at what great good might be accomplished if you were able to harness all that effort toward something useful.
Most of your reply is just recycling of prior emotional opinions which didn't address my points. In particular, I've challenged you about this before and you continue to deflect from addressing the truth that no person has the right to endanger another. In a pandemic one person's behavior can infect others. There are many, many examples of this principle - such as drunk driving laws, and pollution laws, and even property rights laws. So, the question to you remains - do people have the right to endanger others, or don't they? That's a yes or no question, sir.
There is something interesting, and that's your statement that if you don't already know the right action to take in a situation the best thing is to do nothing. Aside from the fact that statement denies the value of learning and experience, and the further fact that governments, the military, and health organizations have been planning for pandemics for years, I don't think it's necessary to even give that the dignity of a rebuttal.
Finally, you say, "The easiest is the last. This assertion cannot be falsified. "It would have been worse!" That's invalid on its face if only because it cannot be proven." Wrong on two levels. First, it is a completely logical statement because it conforms to all our experience with prior situations, so must be considered. And secondly, you say it can't be proven (I disagree), but it also can not be disproven, so must stand.
Just to save us both some time in the future I see no point in further debating any of this with you. We are not going to agree, which has been evident for some time. My future posts will be for the amusement of others following this thread, and I suspect they've already found all the humor to be found in this thread. Cheers.
gregfeeler
Dances With Sheep
Here's a nice little read on the legal concepts involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)
We have had over 1/2 million people die this past year that didn't have to, if we had only taken this thing seriously from the begining.
Now that there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel is not the time to let our guard down just so we can have a beer at the pub. It will only make things worse again. We've been at this WAY too long to backslide now. Cases in Florida have doubled this past week (can anybody say Spring Break).
We need to see this through. Don't send the fire department home while there are still embers glowing in the back bedroom just so we can watch TV.
I know it's not fun to think of others when everything is going so well for ourselves, but that's one of the consequences/responsibilities of living in a society, no matter how far out in the boonies we choose to live.
Now that there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel is not the time to let our guard down just so we can have a beer at the pub. It will only make things worse again. We've been at this WAY too long to backslide now. Cases in Florida have doubled this past week (can anybody say Spring Break).
We need to see this through. Don't send the fire department home while there are still embers glowing in the back bedroom just so we can watch TV.
I know it's not fun to think of others when everything is going so well for ourselves, but that's one of the consequences/responsibilities of living in a society, no matter how far out in the boonies we choose to live.
- Status
Similar threads
- rocketman
- Ride Reports