3 hours ago, Demonland said:

3 months ?

 

Morrison was saying 6 months at his press conference today 

 

nrl are targeting july 1 resumption - will try and go before that if they can

 

An excellent article. The hysteria in the media is destructive and dangerous

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/national-coronavirus-hysteria-will-lead-to-disproportionate-suffering/news-story/56f887b32023c30efcc5f51346c92051?fbclid=IwAR0ze7YvyZppg8NPg1YLgrJ4UFeF3WkdwGAuMBna6JCiAZUWj3CfiqOpsJA

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

An excellent article.

Yeah nah, that article is cherry picking at it's finest. Opinion is one thing, facts are another. Can we please stop comparing it to the flu? 

We don't know the case/ fatality rate, but no-one is pretending that we do. What we do know with absolute certainty is that allowing the virus to spread unchecked will result in a lot of preventable deaths.

Yes the mortality rate is low for young, healthy people. But if you're talking about millions of potential infections, a low mortality rate is still a disturbingly high number of deaths. That's not hysteria, that's just maths. 

Right now, we've really got 2 choices. Option 1: stay in lockdown and hope for the best. Option 2: relax restrictions, watch the number of cases increase exponentially, then say "Oh [censored], we shouldn't have done that!", and then go back to lockdown, now with overflowing hospitals and morgues.  

If we get to choose between the New York and South Korea options, why on earth would you choose New York?

 

10 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Yeah nah, that article is cherry picking at it's finest. Opinion is one thing, facts are another. Can we please stop comparing it to the flu? 

We don't know the case/ fatality rate, but no-one is pretending that we do. What we do know with absolute certainty is that allowing the virus to spread unchecked will result in a lot of preventable deaths.

Yes the mortality rate is low for young, healthy people. But if you're talking about millions of potential infections, a low mortality rate is still a disturbingly high number of deaths. That's not hysteria, that's just maths. 

Right now, we've really got 2 choices. Option 1: stay in lockdown and hope for the best. Option 2: relax restrictions, watch the number of cases increase exponentially, then say "Oh [censored], we shouldn't have done that!", and then go back to lockdown, now with overflowing hospitals and morgues.  

If we get to choose between the New York and South Korea options, why on earth would you choose New York?

 

Didn't even have to read it, saw it was a Murdoch rag and new what the gist would be - " all this government spending is unsustainable, we have to think about the economy!! So what if a few old people die, they're almost dead anyway and will help the issue of funding the aged pension"

Something like that

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Didn't even have to read it, saw it was a Murdoch rag and new what the gist would be - " all this government spending is unsustainable, we have to think about the economy!! So what if a few old people die, they're almost dead anyway and will help the issue of funding the aged pension"

Something like that

wow, what an ideologue you are, gonzo. you can belittle an opinion without even reading it.

exactly what's wrong with political discourse in this country

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

wow, what an ideologue you are, gonzo. you can belittle an opinion without even reading it.

To be fair, Gonzo's summary of the article is more or less spot on. 

All media is biased to some degree, but the anti-science bile spewed out by the Murdoch press is, generally speaking, disturbingly predictable. 

19 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Yes the mortality rate is low for young, healthy people

I know someone (brother of a good mate) who's a "young healthy" person. He got it. From his telling, I wouldn't' wish it upon anyone. He speaks of disconnecting his oxygen and hauling himself off his hospital bed in an attempt to write a goodbye letter to his young daughters after his doctor refused to give him a guarantee that he would make it.

19 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

What we do know with absolute certainty is that allowing the virus to spread unchecked will result in a lot of preventable deaths.

Allowing an unstoppable virus like this to spread unchecked would also lead to the collapse of the economy.

If you have the time (hahaha!) this is interesting listening from a doctor on the front line in one of NYC's best hospitals

 

7 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

To be fair, Gonzo's summary of the article is more or less spot on. 

All media is biased to some degree, but the anti-science bile spewed out by the Murdoch press is, generally speaking, disturbingly predictable. 

Just out of curiosity what media organizations do you read or listen to?

14 hours ago, drysdale demon said:

Just out of curiosity what media organizations do you read or listen to?

Like I said, all media is biased (some more than others), and I'm the same as everyone else - I tend to read things that reflect my existing opinions.

But science should stand for itself - I think it's important to bypass opinions as much as possible and get facts from the source - either from researchers themselves, or from good science communicators. It's very easy for a journo with an agenda to misinterpret evidence, cherry-pick a few facts and reach an incorrect conclusion to get clicks - the Murdoch press has turned this into an art form. 

The context is food nutrition, but I think this article does a pretty good job at highlighting how easily 'facts' can be misinterpreted to suit any agenda: https://www.thinkingnutrition.com.au/broccoli-bad-for-you/. 

Sadly, I think the Betoota Advocate is about the most objective source of news going these days.

 

 

On 4/5/2020 at 10:19 PM, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Yeah nah, that article is cherry picking at it's finest. Opinion is one thing, facts are another. Can we please stop comparing it to the flu? 

We don't know the case/ fatality rate, but no-one is pretending that we do. What we do know with absolute certainty is that allowing the virus to spread unchecked will result in a lot of preventable deaths.

Yes the mortality rate is low for young, healthy people. But if you're talking about millions of potential infections, a low mortality rate is still a disturbingly high number of deaths. That's not hysteria, that's just maths. 

Right now, we've really got 2 choices. Option 1: stay in lockdown and hope for the best. Option 2: relax restrictions, watch the number of cases increase exponentially, then say "Oh [censored], we shouldn't have done that!", and then go back to lockdown, now with overflowing hospitals and morgues.  

If we get to choose between the New York and South Korea options, why on earth would you choose New York?

If only it were this simple. We will need to make hard calls soon. if we relax restrictions it will lead to some people dying but we can't stay like this forever and how long with a vaccine take? 

I'm glad we are so isolated in Australia, we should be able to manage this (with some damage caused) over time.  Staying in lockdown all year is not the answer in my opinion 

2 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Like I said, all media is biased (some more than others), and I'm the same as everyone else - I tend to read things that reflect my existing opinions.

But science should stand for itself - I think it's important to bypass opinions as much as possible and get facts from the source - either from researchers themselves, or from good science communicators. It's very easy for a journo with an agenda to misinterpret evidence, cherry-pick a few facts and reach an incorrect conclusion to get clicks - the Murdoch press has turned this into an art form. 

The context is food nutrition, but I think this article does a pretty good job at highlighting how easily 'facts' can be misinterpreted to suit any agenda: https://www.thinkingnutrition.com.au/broccoli-bad-for-you/. 

Sadly, I think the Betoota Advocate is about the most objective source of news going these days.

 

 

It is not only the murdoch press who does this, from my experience all media outlets are masters of it. As far as that artile is concerned I have posted before in various threads about people stupidly believing what they read on social media sites.

Edited April 7, 20205 yr by drysdale demon
correction

21 minutes ago, DubDee said:

We will need to make hard calls soon. if we relax restrictions it will lead to some people dying but we can't stay like this forever and how long with a vaccine take? 

I absolutely agree with you - we can't live like this forever. At some point, in the absence of a vaccine, we might be faced with some brutal decisions about the death toll we are willing to tolerate in order to resume some sense of normality with our lives. There may come a time when those conversations need to be had. 

My problem with the article wasn't for suggesting those things. Those decisions have enormous ramifications - they need to be based on good science and not misguided ideology. My problem with the article was that it used extremely selective 'facts' to suit a predetermined ideological agenda.

For example:

- "It's just the flu" (simply not true - it's demonstrably far worse, and far more contagious)

- On asymptomatic cases: "A disease that doesn't make you ill? Terrifying." (That's a major reason why it spreads so easily)

- "We lost 20 people to the disease in March. We lost 13,000 to other ailments, but let's not worry about them." (The reason the death toll is currently so low is precisely because of the draconian social distancing measures)

- "The data is fundamentally flawed... If we don't know how many have been infected, we don't know the mortality rate" (Literally no-one is pretending that we do know the exact mortality rate. The number of fatalities is also a gross underestimate, because in many places the official figures are limited to deaths in hospitals, and other countries are almost certainly deliberately under-reporting)

- "If 1 in 1,200 dies, 99% of them already gravely ill, it's not so frightening" (OK, now you're just pulling numbers out of your [censored])

End rant  

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

- "If 1 in 1,200 dies, 99% of them already gravely ill, it's not so frightening" (OK, now you're just pulling numbers out of your [censored])

This is a real furphy. They are not gravely ill in the sense that they are about to die. Even with fairly serious lung disease, you can still have years of life ahead.

As for the 99%, it's just a fabrication, there are plenty without comorbidities that are falling to Covid.

5 hours ago, DubDee said:

if we relax restrictions it will lead to some people dying

We could just cut the middle man here and go straight for human sacrifice.

2 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

I absolutely agree with you - we can't live like this forever. At some point, in the absence of a vaccine, we might be faced with some brutal decisions about the death toll we are willing to tolerate in order to resume some sense of normality with our lives. There may come a time when those conversations need to be had. 

My problem with the article wasn't for suggesting those things. Those decisions have enormous ramifications - they need to be based on good science and not misguided ideology. My problem with the article was that it used extremely selective 'facts' to suit a predetermined ideological agenda.

For example:

- "It's just the flu" (simply not true - it's demonstrably far worse, and far more contagious)

- On asymptomatic cases: "A disease that doesn't make you ill? Terrifying." (That's a major reason why it spreads so easily)

- "We lost 20 people to the disease in March. We lost 13,000 to other ailments, but let's not worry about them." (The reason the death toll is currently so low is precisely because of the draconian social distancing measures)

- "The data is fundamentally flawed... If we don't know how many have been infected, we don't know the mortality rate" (Literally no-one is pretending that we do know the exact mortality rate. The number of fatalities is also a gross underestimate, because in many places the official figures are limited to deaths in hospitals, and other countries are almost certainly deliberately under-reporting)

- "If 1 in 1,200 dies, 99% of them already gravely ill, it's not so frightening" (OK, now you're just pulling numbers out of your [censored])

End rant  

 

 

 

even leading scientists are pulling figures out of their arrrz. there is more unknowns than knowns. it's still unchartered territory.

if life or death choices are made in the future it will not just be science based......science. ethics, economics and politics will all play a part.  we've all read about aktion t4 based on science and medicine with a good taste of ideology thrown in. and that went down well didn't it.

11 minutes ago, bing181 said:

We could just cut the middle man here and go straight for human sacrifice.

Surely we've been pre-programmed with enough zombie movies in the past to know exactly what we all must do.

Edited April 7, 20205 yr by Neil Crompton

In breaking news: children have been ordered to stay at least 1.5m away from George Pell 

NRL island just sounds brilliant.

It needs to be a reality show as well.

How many poos in shoes would there be?

Bubblers? lets get Todd Carney back!

The place would be demolished within a week.

Roy and HG would have to commentate and be part of the programming team as well.

 

 

2 hours ago, Brownie said:

NRL island just sounds brilliant.

It needs to be a reality show as well.

How many poos in shoes would there be?

Bubblers? lets get Todd Carney back!

The place would be demolished within a week.

Roy and HG would have to commentate and be part of the programming team as well.

 

 

And how many John Hopoate's 

~1200 cases in Victoria. more than half have recovered. The curve is flattening for sure (although don't tell the general public).  I reckon Andrews has done pretty well in a tough spot.

hopefully things will be turn around for us soon!