Hooligans Sportsbook

Coronavirus

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    3,032 Replies •
  • Views 195,250 Views
Follow
U.S. government researchers have determined that the virus survives best indoors and in dry conditions, and loses potency when temperatures and humidity rise – and especially when it is exposed to sunlight, said William Bryan, acting head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate.

"The virus dies quickest in the presence of direct sunlight," he told a White House news briefing. On non-porous surfaces like stainless steel, the new coronavirus takes 18 hours to lose half its strength in a dark, low-humidity environment, Bryan said.

In a high-humidity environment, that half-life dropped to six hours, and when the virus was exposed to high humidity and sunlight, the half-life dropped to two minutes, he said.

Researchers found a similar effect with the coronavirus that was suspended in the air, simulating the coughing or sneezing that often spreads the disease. In a dark room, the virus maintained half its strength for an hour. But when exposed to sunlight, it lost half its strength in 90 seconds, Bryan said.

Researchers also found that isopropyl alcohol was a more effective disinfectant than bleach, he said.

The findings could bolster hopes that the coronavirus will mimic the behaviour of other respiratory diseases like influenza, which typically are less contagious in warm weather.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-disinfectant-light-reaction-1.5543563
 
Matty
It's a pretty thick line between PR/think tanks and deep state conspiracies.
Click to expand...
There need not be conspiracies. Groups and institutions naturally look for things that will benefit their survival and expand their influence. It's true in all aspects of life. Sometimes they get more or less brazen, depending on how much pushback they encounter. Having an apathetic and obedient public leads to minimal pushback.
And in the modern world unfortunately, the advancement of the technologies (or techniques) the powerful can use, develop faster than the public's resistance abilities. (or immunity, if you like). It's a dangerous road, that I think, many have been worried about for a long time.
Until now, the discussion seemed largely theoretical. Now it's here
 
With confirmed hospitalization rates for under 50 at LESS THAN 3/100,000 its time to tell old people and the infirm to quarantine. Everyone else go back to your business (except when dealing with you old and infirm friends/family).

Im glad we took a time out and stepped back to study some stuff... But this is fucking ridiculous.

Despite all the anecdotes and personal experiences knowing someone young and healthy who died - the fact of the matter is this thing doesn't effect 65% of the population. It doesn't. Fuck.
 
Yes. It's amazing how people refuse to consider numbers, while hiding behind "science" and wanting to save lives.
How much of your time/life are you willing to give up to avoid the additional 1/1000 risk of serious illness? Most of us only have what, 2-300 months at best of decent time left?
The only reasonable answer I can come up with, is perhaps most people don't feel negatively effected by shutdowns. Maybe they find it a nice vacation :dunno:
 
Continued quarantine and safety measures are to protect the old and infirm. This was never about young and healthy people, regardless of the media fetishizing the occasional young healthy person's death.

So we open everything back up. Tons and tons of people get the virus, most can handle it. But those that can't, due to age or pre-existing conditions, become much more likely to catch it now as every trip to the grocery store or whatever else they need is now much more dangerous as we have decided to spread this thing with reckless abandon.

Meanwhile, thousands around the country that live with their parents or take care of their grandparents or a child with asthma or whatever are left to make a horrible choice; return to work and put their loved ones at risk? Or lose their job to someone who IS willing to? Most will choose work out of desperation. And in turn many will get their loved ones sick and lead to more deaths.

And are we sure hospital resources won't be overrun in this scenario? What about cancer patients? Now that you guys are living in corona-for-everyone land, when someone who was otherwise healthy before gets cancer, can they safely undergo chemo in this world? Who will take care of them when all the people in the workforce are exposed because "fuck it they are healthy"?

I agree that indefinite quarantine isn't sustainable. And if you believe that however many hundreds of thousands or potentially millions of deaths befall the elderly and infirm is necessary collateral damage to get things going for everyone else, that's fine. But to act like this is some kind of easy decision or that continued quarantine is "ridiculous" doesn't do any justice to the scope of what we are dealing with here.
 
Under 50 - not worse than a flu.
65% of the nation is 50 or under.
If each individual (including the aged) is careful they can choose to avoid infection.

These are facts.

"Chances are", speculation (or perhaps trolling, seems like outright trolling) about MILLIONS of old people dying, misconstruing posts by saying "everything open", fallacy about work being open being the same as forcing those to go to work (again ignoring individual choice).

These are opinions and deflections.
 
Vegas Dave
Shit. And I didn't even mention the fact that 20% of the people in this country over the age of 65 are still working and can't afford to retire (https://nypost.com/2018/10/09/1-in-5-americans-over-65-are-still-waiting-to-retire/)... Chances are a decent chunk of them are going to chance it and die too, huh?

You are right, I'd better fuck off instead of bringing this stuff up.
Click to expand...

You realize these people currently have no choice. The choice you reference is between current status quo and work + risk. How can option A or option B be worse than just option A. No logic here.
 
Vegas Dave
Continued quarantine and safety measures are to protect the old and infirm. This was never about young and healthy people, regardless of the media fetishizing the occasional young healthy person's death.

So we open everything back up. Tons and tons of people get the virus, most can handle it. But those that can't, due to age or pre-existing conditions, become much more likely to catch it now as every trip to the grocery store or whatever else they need is now much more dangerous as we have decided to spread this thing with reckless abandon.

Meanwhile, thousands around the country that live with their parents or take care of their grandparents or a child with asthma or whatever are left to make a horrible choice; return to work and put their loved ones at risk? Or lose their job to someone who IS willing to? Most will choose work out of desperation. And in turn many will get their loved ones sick and lead to more deaths.

And are we sure hospital resources won't be overrun in this scenario? What about cancer patients? Now that you guys are living in corona-for-everyone land, when someone who was otherwise healthy before gets cancer, can they safely undergo chemo in this world? Who will take care of them when all the people in the workforce are exposed because "fuck it they are healthy"?

I agree that indefinite quarantine isn't sustainable. And if you believe that however many hundreds of thousands or potentially millions of deaths befall the elderly and infirm is necessary collateral damage to get things going for everyone else, that's fine. But to act like this is some kind of easy decision or that continued quarantine is "ridiculous" doesn't do any justice to the scope of what we are dealing with here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think everybody understands this. But people can make their own decisions based on their situation.
The highlighted part I find interesting. Kinda a feel like the people who aren't effected by the shutdowns want them to continue. They want the advantage over others. So it's better that those that really need to work and need to do things, don't have the choice to do so, because it gives them an advantage over the cowardly types. :thinking: Yeah, seems like that's where we're at
 
Great post Davey! Yes it's a numbers game and just say right now "people" who want to survive will rather go back to work doing it than survive living in fear of long-lasting poverty! Rolling the dice I guess but from my personal "word on the street" poll, it favors going back to work! Davey like you stated, it's DESPERATION!

And let's talk numbers! Been hearing lots of raw number totals but not much % talk! Davey, you're guess on the % total that dies from it? Hear some high numbers out there meaning 2-3%! I think most people seriously doubt that and for argument sake say .05 die, which I think is still too high! Say 200M Americans get the virus! That's staggering but swine affected 60M!

So gives us 1M Americans dying, that BAD! Or 300M get it and then 1.5M. Thing is though people who need to work will think 1 out of every 200 die and I have to take that chance! And like you stated, it's not an EASY decision.
 
Boner_18
Under 50 - not worse than a flu.
65% of the nation is 50 or under.
If each individual (including the aged) is careful they can choose to avoid infection.

These are facts.

"Chances are", speculation (or perhaps trolling, seems like outright trolling) about MILLIONS of old people dying, misconstruing posts by saying "everything open", fallacy about work being open being the same as forcing those to go to work (again ignoring individual choice).

These are opinions and deflections.
Click to expand...

I said "hundreds of thousands, if not millions". Do you really think this is an exaggeration at all? Over 100 million people in this country are over the age of 50 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/). If even just 1/3 of them get it (~35 million) and only 5% of those died, that's still 1.75 million. We already have ~55,000 dead, and you think I'm wrong that we'd have hundreds of thousands if we removed quarantine for everyone under 50/healthy? That these people wouldn't come in contact with elderly/infirm? I mean this is pretty common sense, not really fallacy or deflection.

You literally said "everyone else go back to your business" but I'm misconstruing "everything open"? What falls under the category of can't reopen if elderly people aren't involved? Certainly not TOO many things?

Boner_18
Then when do we go back to work and how? Its like asking my wife what she wants for dinner. She doesn't know what she wants but she knows she doesn't want all the things i suggest.
Click to expand...

I don't know!! I even said as much: "I agree that indefinite quarantine isn't sustainable. And if you believe that however many hundreds of thousands or potentially millions of deaths befall the elderly and infirm is necessary collateral damage to get things going for everyone else, that's fine."

I DO NOT have an issue with wanting things to reopen in some kind of capacity (as you suggest, reopening for healthy/unaffected people). To be honest I think that's part of the right path... get testing, those who have antibodies are able to return to work. I'd also like some plan in place to protect those who can't go back to work or are still afraid to for their safety or the safety of their families.

My point wasn't that you are wrong. I was simply disagreeing that "this is fucking ridiculous", as you said. It's not. It's really complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.