Covid-19

[Tracker]

OOH OOOH WHY NOT US, TOO?!?!?

[Mr Dee]

I’ve seen this question before:

Why worry about coronavirus when the flu kills many more people?

The novel coronavirus is dangerous for several reasons, even if the number of deaths might not have matched that of the flu.

Since this flu season started October 1, an estimated 24,000 to 62,000 Americans have died from the flu, according to CDC. Nationwide, the flu has infected at least 39 million people between October and early April.

The first US case of coronavirus was reported in January, and the first US death from coronavirus was reported in late February. By April 16, the US had more than 639,600 cases (update 815,491) of coronavirus, and more than 30,900 people have died. (Update April 21 - 45,013)

You asked, we’re answering: Your top coronavirus questions:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-questions-answers/

Q*s and A*s relevant to what’s going on.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 hours ago, J5V said:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs.^[1] This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup". Members of a group can often feel peer pressure to "go along with the crowd" in fear of rocking the boat or of what them speaking up will do to the overall to how their teammates perceive them. Group interactions tend to favor, clear and harmonious agreements and it can be a cause for concern when little to no new innovations or arguments for better policies, outcomes and structures are called to question. (McLeod). Groupthink can often be referred to as a group of “yes men” because group activities and group projects in general make it extremely easy to pass on not offering constructive opinions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

Crank is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.^[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held that it is considered ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.^{[citation needed]}

Common synonyms for crank include crackpot and kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be ineffective; this term, however, does not imply any deep belief in the idea or product they are attempting to sell. Crank may also refer to an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage is not the subject of this article.

Although experts in the field find a crank's beliefs ridiculous, cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views. A famous example is the Indiana Pi Bill where a state legislature nearly wrote into law a crank result in geometry.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by wanna-b-fanboy

[17to85]

4 hours ago, pigseye said:

And you are just waking up to this fact now? Please do some research on the politicization od science and you will see that we are on the same side.    

You sure like to move the goal posts you know that right?

People try and corrupt science to meet their political needs, but science is pure. Other than quacks who get discredited very quickly scientists have no agenda, only the search for answers. It's ignorant people who try and corrupt research, but they're not engaged in science, only trying to justify their silly positions. 

[iHeart]

well stupid people WAS IT WORTH IT?

 

[tacklewasher]

2 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Here's my experience with conspiracy theories:

First, I'll list a few off the top of my head:

1. All our computers will crash when the year 2000 arrives
2. 911 was an inside job

3.  The Titanic didn't really sink, they sunk another ship to claim the insurance on Titanic

4. No one has ever landed on the moon - it was all trick photography

There are 100s of others, but I will stop there.  Just looking at those four - they have all been disproven

My question is simply this: can you give us something that was originally labelled a conspiracy theory, that was later proven to be legit?

 

While I agree 1 through 3, the truth is that 4 was staged. Nasa hired Stanley Kubrick to do the filming, the only issue is he demanded it be filmed on location

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by tacklewasher

[Tracker]

33 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

You sure like to move the goal posts you know that right?

People try and corrupt science to meet their political needs, but science is pure. Other than quacks who get discredited very quickly scientists have no agenda, only the search for answers. It's ignorant people who try and corrupt research, but they're not engaged in science, only trying to justify their silly positions. 

As much as I believe in science, it is not without stain. There are numerous instances where results have been either deliberately misrepresented to support a predetermined result, or misinterpreted. Corporations are not above sponsoring misleading "research". The tobacco industry is one example and the pharmaceutical industry has also been guilty, as the current furor about Trump's "cure"  proves.

[do or die]

Kinda like how some Christians "interpret" the Bible, or attempt to simply have it fit some sort of theory or agenda

[J5V]

3 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Here's my experience with conspiracy theories:

First, I'll list a few off the top of my head:

1. All our computers will crash when the year 2000 arrives

2. 911 was an inside job

3.  The Titanic didn't really sink, they sunk another ship to claim the insurance on Titanic

4. No one has ever landed on the moon - it was all trick photography

There are 100s of others, but I will stop there.  Just looking at those four - they have all been disproven

My question is simply this: can you give us something that was originally labelled a conspiracy theory, that was later proven to be legit?

 

 

[GCJenks]

I thought this graphic was a fitting update to the Sweden experiment. Couldn’t capture the full ranking in one frame but here are Sweden and her closest neighbours. Norway was one of the first to enact social distancing and backed it up with severe penalties for not obeying. 
 

They have already started to back off some of those restrictions, Sweden will likely need to implement some as their health system is now overrun with cases. 

Strike that, you’ll have to click the link, I forget that this forum won’t host images directly. 
 

https://www.covid-19canada.com/?#readmore

[Mr Dee]

57 minutes ago, Tracker said:

As much as I believe in science, it is not without stain. There are numerous instances where results have been either deliberately misrepresented to support a predetermined result, or misinterpreted. Corporations are not above sponsoring misleading "research". The tobacco industry is one example and the pharmaceutical industry has also been guilty, as the current furor about Trump's "cure"  proves.

But is it the really the science or those who manipulate the science?

[johnzo]

4 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Here's my experience with conspiracy theories:

First, I'll list a few off the top of my head:

1. All our computers will crash when the year 2000 arrives

Y2K was definitely not a conspiracy theory -- it was a massive and largely successful effort by IT folks to upgrade systems to deal with a very real bug.  If we'd done nothing we would have been in some trouble.  I was at Nortel in the late nineties and the phone switch folks took Y2K very very seriously. 

The power grid was legit a big worry, what with its continental scope and tricky-to-understand cascading failure modes.  The 2003 eastern North American power outage was caused by a single failure at a single utility in Ohio .. and that knocked everything from Maryland to Thunder Bay down. Multiple utilities going down unexpectedly could have put us in serious uh-oh territory.

Some of the reaction to CV19 reminds me of the reaction to Y2K -- since it wasn't as bad as it could have been, the threat was imaginary.

Edited April 22, 2020 by johnzo

[J5V]

1 hour ago, GCJenks said:

I thought this graphic was a fitting update to the Sweden experiment. Couldn’t capture the full ranking in one frame but here are Sweden and her closest neighbours. Norway was one of the first to enact social distancing and backed it up with severe penalties for not obeying. 
 

They have already started to back off some of those restrictions, Sweden will likely need to implement some as their health system is now overrun with cases. 

Strike that, you’ll have to click the link, I forget that this forum won’t host images directly. 
 

https://www.covid-19canada.com/?#readmore

Interesting. Who has a larger percentage of older people in their population, Canada or Sweden, and by how much?

[Mark H.]

57 minutes ago, johnzo said:

Y2K was definitely not a conspiracy theory -- it was a massive and largely successful effort by IT folks to upgrade systems to deal with a very real bug.  If we'd done nothing we would have been in some trouble.  I was at Nortel in the late nineties and the phone switch folks took Y2K very very seriously. 

The power grid was legit a big worry, what with its continental scope and tricky-to-understand cascading failure modes.  The 2003 eastern North American power outage was caused by a single failure at a single utility in Ohio .. and that knocked everything from Maryland to Thunder Bay down. Multiple utilities going down unexpectedly could have put us in serious uh-oh territory.

Some of the reaction to CV19 reminds me of the reaction to Y2K -- since it wasn't as bad as it could have been, the threat was imaginary.

I did a lot of reading on this back in 1999 - even wrote a paper on it for my grade 12 English class.  Right up until we reached the year 2000, banking computers were supposed to shut down, the power grid was supposed go down, etc. etc.  They said many countries had taken the steps you describe, but it would all be null and void because places like Russia had not upgraded, and any contact with them would compromise our IT systems.  Just to clarify - that’s what I was referring to. 

[Mark H.]

2 hours ago, J5V said:

 

Interesting.  See, I never thought of most of those as conspiracy theories, I have always thought of them as factual stories. 

[GCJenks]

1 hour ago, J5V said:

Interesting. Who has a larger percentage of older people in their population, Canada or Sweden, and by how much?

According to Google 15% and change in Canada, 20% in Sweden. Sweden’s total pop is roughly 10.5 million vs our 37.6. 

[J5V]

22 minutes ago, GCJenks said:

According to Google 15% and change in Canada, 20% in Sweden. Sweden’s total pop is roughly 10.5 million vs our 37.6. 

Interesting. It's hard to find data like that. Is that people over 65? What about over 50? I'm just wondering if one of the reasons Sweden's numbers are skewed higher is because they have a higher percentage of elderly. Obviously if you have fewer elderly you're going to have fewer deaths/lower death rate.

[Jpan85]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/
 

Has data from every country in the world.

[TrueBlue4ever]

22 minutes ago, J5V said:

Interesting. It's hard to find data like that. Is that people over 65? What about over 50? I'm just wondering if one of the reasons Sweden's numbers are skewed higher is because they have a higher percentage of elderly. Obviously if you have fewer elderly you're going to have fewer deaths/lower death rate.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107905/number-of-coronavirus-cases-in-sweden-by-age-groups/

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107149/covid19-cases-age-distribution-canada/

Edited April 22, 2020 by TrueBlue4ever

[GCJenks]

46 minutes ago, J5V said:

Interesting. It's hard to find data like that. Is that people over 65? What about over 50? I'm just wondering if one of the reasons Sweden's numbers are skewed higher is because they have a higher percentage of elderly. Obviously if you have fewer elderly you're going to have fewer deaths/lower death rate.

Are you suggesting Google is a hoax now? Type the question in and hit enter. That’s pretty hard to do. Just look at the source and pick one that would pass a test of MBB peers...

[J5V]

1 hour ago, GCJenks said:

Are you suggesting Google is a hoax now? Type the question in and hit enter. That’s pretty hard to do. Just look at the source and pick one that would pass a test of MBB peers...

Can't follow? That's ok. A lot of that going around.

[J5V]

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107905/number-of-coronavirus-cases-in-sweden-by-age-groups/

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107149/covid19-cases-age-distribution-canada/

Thanks. Best I was able to come up with was percentage of population for both countries of people over 55 was 31.5% for Canada and 31.84 for Sweden. Virtually identical. So much for that theory.  🙂

[SpeedFlex27]

I'm losing a lot of respect for the Calgary Stampede Board & their (so far) unwillingness to cancel the Stampede. Calgary City Council has banned all public gatherings to June 30th & the Stampede starts on July 3rd & runs to the 12th. So, just 3 days after the ban may be cancelled & the fact that BC has banned public gatherings such as weddings, etc till the end of summer, then why hasn't the Stampede cancelled?

I've been living in Calgary now for over 30 years & I have to admit I'm getting a little sick & tired of hearing how much this City NEEDS the Stampede. When we had the floods in 2013, again all we heard was just how much we needed the Stampede. People's businesses, homes & lives were ruined but public funds that were supposed to go to stricken neighbourhoods or for relief were redirected to clean up the Stampede grounds for the Big Event. 

Now again we hear just how much we need the Stampede again. Vendors are saying they won't survive if it's cancelled. Civic politicians are saying how negatively the psyche of the City will be affected if the event isn't allowed to go on. Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi said that he had a dream. The dream was he woke up on July 1st & the pandemic was over & the Stampede went on as if nothing ever happened. Blah, blah, bah, blah. I just look at it is a no brainer. Last year, over a million visitors came to Stampede Park. With the US border closed & travel restrictions on international flights even if the Stampede went ahead there'd be nowhere close to a million people attending for 10 days. But let's say just 200,000 visitors show up. If just 10% are infected, that's still 20,000 Calgarians sick & overwhelming hospitals here.  The risk is just too great. The responsible thing is to cancel. If the Stampede Board refuses then the City & Province have to show some guts & do it for them. 

Unfortunately, the Stampede Board is a very powerful organization with connections to the City & Province. Wouldn't surprise me if the Stampede will be allowed to go on with the Stampede as restrictions will magically be lifted on June 30th. 

Edited April 22, 2020 by SpeedFlex27

[Eternal optimist]

Relevant.

[Tracker]

Reports out of the US yesterday confirm that the Trump administration is looking to shield employers from criminal and civil liability if they force employees to work without protective equipment or rules and thus contract the Coronavirus. If employees refuse to work under these circumstances, they would be denied UI benefits. Ain't America great?