Coronavirus Outbreak

[the_third]

the flu and Covid are not comparable. Covid is thought to have long term medical impacts and can quickly overwhelm hospitals in the short term. Both short term and long term economic effects will be massive

crap article, but the Quora answer they reference is a good illustration of why its a significant disease (its referenced if you want to go to that sort of detail).

https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/social-relevance/man-explains-how-a-disease-with-1-mortality-rate-shut-down-the-us-517961.html

 

[Hangonaminute]

If we just 'lived with' covid like we do the flu, you're not looking at 3,000 v 3,100, you're looking at 3,000 v 100,000.

Further to that, let's get real here, apart from partial immunity, those flu figures are only kept that low because we are already taking reasonable restriction measures through continual development of annual vaccinations, public health warnings and programs.

Covid 19 is a different kettle of fish altogether, with an array of effects, some potentially remaining lifelong upon recovery, that we are now beginning to learn about and only hopeful that a vaccine will be made available to combat it. Basically, the current response is somewhat proportionate and we are looking at mainly saving the lives of those that have already survived an era with inferior medical practices, many more unchecked life threatening diseases and some even the lack of antibiotics.

So what number would the yearly flu death toll have to reach for you to self isolate?

Because let's get real here, the current number doesn't bother you at all

Hard to pinpoint an exact figure

I am though still self isolating to a great extent to this very day, even with no known cases in my area of late to the best of my knowledge. This is about community and looking after others for me, finding a balance in the short/medium term between safety, particularly of the older generations and what is necessary for a reasonable life for our children.

We are lucky to live in a country where most have so much available at hand in their homes to be able to do so without feeling alone, apart from physically for some and the ability to provide for those that don't.

I will leave to take my son to play rugby in the morning, socially distancing and following protocols whilst there, then return straight home afterwards if we do not need to go to a supermarket. Apart from walking the dog which will double as exercising, I will not leave the property until I take him to a swimming lesson on Monday evening. By me doing such, it allows for more movement of others, say like those in a relationship living separately.

I am no flag waiver, but respect the sacrifices of the older generations before us to allow the relative freedoms of our modern world and see staying home to stifle a potent threat to their life as a small sacrifice to thank them in return.

Well for your whole life you've been going about your day not even giving it a thought that a few thousand people are dying around you from the flu every year, so you must be ok with the current death rate of the flu, so I'm just interested in where you draw the line.

So you'd self isolate even if the government didn't enforce it?

How many babies have you been around without having the whooping cough injection?

Or if you're a parent, how many people have you exposed your baby to that haven't had the whooping cough injection?

Yes, I am practicing that now.

None to the best of my knowledge.

None to the best of my knowledge.

So you could have been around numerous babies and potentially exposed them to whooping cough and you could have exposed your baby/ies to numerous people who haven't had the jab.
Yet you're now isolating yourself???

Do you see a problem?

If you hadn't isolated and i asked you "how many people with covid19 have you been around?"

You could say "none to the best of my knowledge"

So why are you self isolating?
If your answer is "to protect myself and others from Covid19"

Then why didn't you keep your babies away from everybody or keep yourself away from every baby to protect them from whooping cough?

 

[mike]

In Australia, influenza on average causes 1,500 to 3,000 deaths a year.
And life goes on as normal.

As of 17th of July 2020 only 113 people have died of covid19 in Australia
The median age of death is 80
And they put us in lockdown.

Something just doesn't make sense here.

How many do you think would have died if we'd just carried on as if it was normal? It's insane to argue this is no worse than the flu.

I don't know, how many?

You seem to be ok with 3000 dying every year from the flu while you carry on with life as usual, so where do you draw the death toll line? 3100? 4000?

How many have to die before you start locking yourself down?

Where did you get 3,000 from?

Official stats from 2019 show between 900-1000 deaths.

2018 was an oddly high year in terms of fatalities, with just over 1,000. Still a far cry from 3,000.

Whether you like it or not, even the very low end estimates show that covid 19 has a far higher fatality rate than influenza a and b.

About 85% of people are vaccinated against a and b, which makes an enormous difference in terms of infections and fatalities.

As we all know, covid-19 has no vaccine, so it could very likely lead to over 100,000 deaths plus an unknown number of secondary deaths as a result of an overwhelmed health system.

I'm not going to argue over who's numbers are accurate.

So let's go with your number of 1000, you seem to be ok with 1000 people dying every year from the flu, you've been going about your day for your entire life without even thinking about it.

So 2 questions

What number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to reach for you to self isolate?

If the government didn't enforce self isolation would you voluntarily do it?
Would you tell your boss "look the numbers are X now so I won't be back until they get under X?"
Be honest

I have. I’ve told a number of bosses either the guy coughing an wheezing everywhere goes home or I do and I’ll be calling work cover if I do. Very effective.

So what number does the yearly flu death toll have to reach for you to start quarantining yourself?

Your question is irrelevant and you know it. If people are sick near me I let them know what I think and what they should do. Other options are available for Influenza to protect yourself rather than self isolation that are not currently available for Covid19. With Covid19 the only substantive protection currently available is physical distancing.

Even with all the options available to protect yourself from the flu, what number does the death toll have to be at for you to self isolate from it?

10k? 20k? C'mon man, what's your limit?

You really are talking nonsense now.

 

[Hangonaminute]

In Australia, influenza on average causes 1,500 to 3,000 deaths a year.
And life goes on as normal.

As of 17th of July 2020 only 113 people have died of covid19 in Australia
The median age of death is 80
And they put us in lockdown.

Something just doesn't make sense here.

How many do you think would have died if we'd just carried on as if it was normal? It's insane to argue this is no worse than the flu.

I don't know, how many?

You seem to be ok with 3000 dying every year from the flu while you carry on with life as usual, so where do you draw the death toll line? 3100? 4000?

How many have to die before you start locking yourself down?

Where did you get 3,000 from?

Official stats from 2019 show between 900-1000 deaths.

2018 was an oddly high year in terms of fatalities, with just over 1,000. Still a far cry from 3,000.

Whether you like it or not, even the very low end estimates show that covid 19 has a far higher fatality rate than influenza a and b.

About 85% of people are vaccinated against a and b, which makes an enormous difference in terms of infections and fatalities.

As we all know, covid-19 has no vaccine, so it could very likely lead to over 100,000 deaths plus an unknown number of secondary deaths as a result of an overwhelmed health system.

I'm not going to argue over who's numbers are accurate.

So let's go with your number of 1000, you seem to be ok with 1000 people dying every year from the flu, you've been going about your day for your entire life without even thinking about it.

So 2 questions

What number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to reach for you to self isolate?

If the government didn't enforce self isolation would you voluntarily do it?
Would you tell your boss "look the numbers are X now so I won't be back until they get under X?"
Be honest

I have. I’ve told a number of bosses either the guy coughing an wheezing everywhere goes home or I do and I’ll be calling work cover if I do. Very effective.

So what number does the yearly flu death toll have to reach for you to start quarantining yourself?

Your question is irrelevant and you know it. If people are sick near me I let them know what I think and what they should do. Other options are available for Influenza to protect yourself rather than self isolation that are not currently available for Covid19. With Covid19 the only substantive protection currently available is physical distancing.

Even with all the options available to protect yourself from the flu, what number does the death toll have to be at for you to self isolate from it?

10k? 20k? C'mon man, what's your limit?

You really are talking nonsense now.

This is simple risk management, at the moment it seems you've assessed the risk of dying or getting the flu or spreading the flu and determined that it's at level you're willing to live with.

I'm just asking what level does it have to get to before you no longer become comfortable with it?

Because I find it strange that someone would feel the risk is too high at 113 deaths at a median age 80 yet doesn't know their risk tolerance level for the flu and seems comfortable with 1000+ deaths.

Maybe some food for thought

 

[mike]

In Australia, influenza on average causes 1,500 to 3,000 deaths a year.
And life goes on as normal.

As of 17th of July 2020 only 113 people have died of covid19 in Australia
The median age of death is 80
And they put us in lockdown.

Something just doesn't make sense here.

How many do you think would have died if we'd just carried on as if it was normal? It's insane to argue this is no worse than the flu.

I don't know, how many?

You seem to be ok with 3000 dying every year from the flu while you carry on with life as usual, so where do you draw the death toll line? 3100? 4000?

How many have to die before you start locking yourself down?

Where did you get 3,000 from?

Official stats from 2019 show between 900-1000 deaths.

2018 was an oddly high year in terms of fatalities, with just over 1,000. Still a far cry from 3,000.

Whether you like it or not, even the very low end estimates show that covid 19 has a far higher fatality rate than influenza a and b.

About 85% of people are vaccinated against a and b, which makes an enormous difference in terms of infections and fatalities.

As we all know, covid-19 has no vaccine, so it could very likely lead to over 100,000 deaths plus an unknown number of secondary deaths as a result of an overwhelmed health system.

I'm not going to argue over who's numbers are accurate.

So let's go with your number of 1000, you seem to be ok with 1000 people dying every year from the flu, you've been going about your day for your entire life without even thinking about it.

So 2 questions

What number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to reach for you to self isolate?

If the government didn't enforce self isolation would you voluntarily do it?
Would you tell your boss "look the numbers are X now so I won't be back until they get under X?"
Be honest

I have. I’ve told a number of bosses either the guy coughing an wheezing everywhere goes home or I do and I’ll be calling work cover if I do. Very effective.

So what number does the yearly flu death toll have to reach for you to start quarantining yourself?

Your question is irrelevant and you know it. If people are sick near me I let them know what I think and what they should do. Other options are available for Influenza to protect yourself rather than self isolation that are not currently available for Covid19. With Covid19 the only substantive protection currently available is physical distancing.

Even with all the options available to protect yourself from the flu, what number does the death toll have to be at for you to self isolate from it?

10k? 20k? C'mon man, what's your limit?

You really are talking nonsense now.

This is simple risk management, at the moment it seems you've assessed the risk of dying or getting the flu or spreading the flu and determined that it's at level you're willing to live with.

I'm just asking what level does it have to get to before you no longer become comfortable with it?

Because I find it strange that someone would feel the risk is too high at 113 deaths at a median age 80 yet doesn't know their risk tolerance level for the flu and seems comfortable with 1000+ deaths.

Maybe some food for thought

You already know why the death rate is very low. It’s been explained you you a number of different ways. 113 Covid19 dead is not the risk, the risk is if we do nothing it’s 100s of thousands dead. You know that you are pushing a false agenda. But hey keep to your narrative champ.

 

[Tim Sheens]

If we just 'lived with' covid like we do the flu, you're not looking at 3,000 v 3,100, you're looking at 3,000 v 100,000.

Further to that, let's get real here, apart from partial immunity, those flu figures are only kept that low because we are already taking reasonable restriction measures through continual development of annual vaccinations, public health warnings and programs.

Covid 19 is a different kettle of fish altogether, with an array of effects, some potentially remaining lifelong upon recovery, that we are now beginning to learn about and only hopeful that a vaccine will be made available to combat it. Basically, the current response is somewhat proportionate and we are looking at mainly saving the lives of those that have already survived an era with inferior medical practices, many more unchecked life threatening diseases and some even the lack of antibiotics.

So what number would the yearly flu death toll have to reach for you to self isolate?

Because let's get real here, the current number doesn't bother you at all

Hard to pinpoint an exact figure

I am though still self isolating to a great extent to this very day, even with no known cases in my area of late to the best of my knowledge. This is about community and looking after others for me, finding a balance in the short/medium term between safety, particularly of the older generations and what is necessary for a reasonable life for our children.

We are lucky to live in a country where most have so much available at hand in their homes to be able to do so without feeling alone, apart from physically for some and the ability to provide for those that don't.

I will leave to take my son to play rugby in the morning, socially distancing and following protocols whilst there, then return straight home afterwards if we do not need to go to a supermarket. Apart from walking the dog which will double as exercising, I will not leave the property until I take him to a swimming lesson on Monday evening. By me doing such, it allows for more movement of others, say like those in a relationship living separately.

I am no flag waiver, but respect the sacrifices of the older generations before us to allow the relative freedoms of our modern world and see staying home to stifle a potent threat to their life as a small sacrifice to thank them in return.

Well for your whole life you've been going about your day not even giving it a thought that a few thousand people are dying around you from the flu every year, so you must be ok with the current death rate of the flu, so I'm just interested in where you draw the line.

So you'd self isolate even if the government didn't enforce it?

How many babies have you been around without having the whooping cough injection?

Or if you're a parent, how many people have you exposed your baby to that haven't had the whooping cough injection?

Yes, I am practicing that now.

None to the best of my knowledge.

None to the best of my knowledge.

So you could have been around numerous babies and potentially exposed them to whooping cough and you could have exposed your baby/ies to numerous people who haven't had the jab.
Yet you're now isolating yourself???

Do you see a problem?

If you hadn't isolated and i asked you "how many people with covid19 have you been around?"

You could say "none to the best of my knowledge"

So why are you self isolating?
If your answer is "to protect myself and others from Covid19"

Then why didn't you keep your babies away from everybody or keep yourself away from every baby to protect them from whooping cough?

The problem I see is that you are making assumptions, all of them wrong. You should have considered that me currently going above and beyond for safety would have translated from the past, one which included obstetric staff that are all vaccinated, as were visitors before for the first months till post having the initial shot had passed.

As for myself, I have no memory from when I was a newborn, so I can only assume that having had no symptoms that I was never infected, nor exposed others to the cough. As for totally ruling anything out, well, as the process is not totally infallible, I cannot, but you get the drift.

 

[cochise]

Guys, please stop taking his bait, he has drawn me in before and it is just a futile discussion.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Guys, please stop taking his bait, he has drawn me in before and it is just a futile discussion.

He's debating in bad faith. False equivalence and whataboutism.

 

[cochise]

Guys, please stop taking his bait, he has drawn me in before and it is just a futile discussion.

He's debating in bad faith. False equivalence and whataboutism.

100% mate, that is how he rolls and he has dragged me in many times. Honestly I believe he is trolling in this thread.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Guys, please stop taking his bait, he has drawn me in before and it is just a futile discussion.

He's debating in bad faith. False equivalence and whataboutism.

100% mate, that is how he rolls and he has dragged me in many times. Honestly I believe he is trolling in this thread.

He is. That's why I won't engage now.

 

[cochise]

Guys, please stop taking his bait, he has drawn me in before and it is just a futile discussion.

He's debating in bad faith. False equivalence and whataboutism.

100% mate, that is how he rolls and he has dragged me in many times. Honestly I believe he is trolling in this thread.

He is. That's why I won't engage now.

I have found that best, though I find that very difficult to as I really disagree what it is he is posting.

 

[Hangonaminute]

Guys, please stop taking his bait, he has drawn me in before and it is just a futile discussion.

He's debating in bad faith. False equivalence and whataboutism.

100% mate, that is how he rolls and he has dragged me in many times. Honestly I believe he is trolling in this thread.

He is. That's why I won't engage now.

I have found that best, though I find that very difficult to as I really disagree what it is he is posting.

So how many people have to die of the flu per year for you to self quarantine?

If 50k die, is that a big enough number for you?

This is a reasonable question that nobody seems to want to answer, instead you just want to come up with an ad hominem argument.

 

[Hangonaminute]

Guys, please stop taking his bait, he has drawn me in before and it is just a futile discussion.

He's debating in bad faith. False equivalence and whataboutism.

100% mate, that is how he rolls and he has dragged me in many times. Honestly I believe he is trolling in this thread.

He is. That's why I won't engage now.

The reason why you won't engage is because you have no answers

 

[cochise]

Guys, please stop taking his bait, he has drawn me in before and it is just a futile discussion.

He's debating in bad faith. False equivalence and whataboutism.

100% mate, that is how he rolls and he has dragged me in many times. Honestly I believe he is trolling in this thread.

He is. That's why I won't engage now.

I have found that best, though I find that very difficult to as I really disagree what it is he is posting.

So how many people have to die of the flu per year for you to self quarantine?

If 50k die, is that a big enough number for you?

This is a reasonable question that nobody seems to want to answer, instead you just want to come up with an ad hominem argument.

Mate, I don't have answer for that, but I will tell you I am concerned enough about what we are facing now to still be taking precautions despite the government lifting restrictions.

Let me ask you, how many lives are you willing to risk with your cavalier attitude to what we are facing? The majority of people you are having a go at are making an effort to reduce the impact of this virus, so I would guess the number of deaths they are willing to accept, as you put it, is lower than yours considering the disregard you have shown to limiting the risk to others since this all started.

 

[Geo]

I'll have a stab...Seems to me that Covid 19 is much more viral-ant than a standard good ole flu..spreads faster ..wider and is more aggressive left un-checked

 

[Hangonaminute]

In Australia, influenza on average causes 1,500 to 3,000 deaths a year.
And life goes on as normal.

As of 17th of July 2020 only 113 people have died of covid19 in Australia
The median age of death is 80
And they put us in lockdown.

Something just doesn't make sense here.

How many do you think would have died if we'd just carried on as if it was normal? It's insane to argue this is no worse than the flu.

I don't know, how many?

You seem to be ok with 3000 dying every year from the flu while you carry on with life as usual, so where do you draw the death toll line? 3100? 4000?

How many have to die before you start locking yourself down?

Where did you get 3,000 from?

Official stats from 2019 show between 900-1000 deaths.

2018 was an oddly high year in terms of fatalities, with just over 1,000. Still a far cry from 3,000.

Whether you like it or not, even the very low end estimates show that covid 19 has a far higher fatality rate than influenza a and b.

About 85% of people are vaccinated against a and b, which makes an enormous difference in terms of infections and fatalities.

As we all know, covid-19 has no vaccine, so it could very likely lead to over 100,000 deaths plus an unknown number of secondary deaths as a result of an overwhelmed health system.

I'm not going to argue over who's numbers are accurate.

So let's go with your number of 1000, you seem to be ok with 1000 people dying every year from the flu, you've been going about your day for your entire life without even thinking about it.

So 2 questions

What number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to reach for you to self isolate?

If the government didn't enforce self isolation would you voluntarily do it?
Would you tell your boss "look the numbers are X now so I won't be back until they get under X?"
Be honest

I have. I’ve told a number of bosses either the guy coughing an wheezing everywhere goes home or I do and I’ll be calling work cover if I do. Very effective.

So what number does the yearly flu death toll have to reach for you to start quarantining yourself?

Your question is irrelevant and you know it. If people are sick near me I let them know what I think and what they should do. Other options are available for Influenza to protect yourself rather than self isolation that are not currently available for Covid19. With Covid19 the only substantive protection currently available is physical distancing.

Even with all the options available to protect yourself from the flu, what number does the death toll have to be at for you to self isolate from it?

10k? 20k? C'mon man, what's your limit?

You really are talking nonsense now.

This is simple risk management, at the moment it seems you've assessed the risk of dying or getting the flu or spreading the flu and determined that it's at level you're willing to live with.

I'm just asking what level does it have to get to before you no longer become comfortable with it?

Because I find it strange that someone would feel the risk is too high at 113 deaths at a median age 80 yet doesn't know their risk tolerance level for the flu and seems comfortable with 1000+ deaths.

Maybe some food for thought

You already know why the death rate is very low. It’s been explained you you a number of different ways. 113 Covid19 dead is not the risk, the risk is if we do nothing it’s 100s of thousands dead. You know that you are pushing a false agenda. But hey keep to your narrative champ.

So what number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to be for you to self isolate?

You seem to be ok with the number it's been at for however many years you've been alive, I'm guessing you have been going about your day and not been concerned about dying of the flu.

113 covid deaths and a median age of 80 and people are freaking out and locking themselves inside.

1500 - 3000 flu deaths every year for your entire life and you go about your day not even thinking about it.

These are the FACTS

 

[cochise]

In Australia, influenza on average causes 1,500 to 3,000 deaths a year.
And life goes on as normal.

As of 17th of July 2020 only 113 people have died of covid19 in Australia
The median age of death is 80
And they put us in lockdown.

Something just doesn't make sense here.

How many do you think would have died if we'd just carried on as if it was normal? It's insane to argue this is no worse than the flu.

I don't know, how many?

You seem to be ok with 3000 dying every year from the flu while you carry on with life as usual, so where do you draw the death toll line? 3100? 4000?

How many have to die before you start locking yourself down?

Where did you get 3,000 from?

Official stats from 2019 show between 900-1000 deaths.

2018 was an oddly high year in terms of fatalities, with just over 1,000. Still a far cry from 3,000.

Whether you like it or not, even the very low end estimates show that covid 19 has a far higher fatality rate than influenza a and b.

About 85% of people are vaccinated against a and b, which makes an enormous difference in terms of infections and fatalities.

As we all know, covid-19 has no vaccine, so it could very likely lead to over 100,000 deaths plus an unknown number of secondary deaths as a result of an overwhelmed health system.

I'm not going to argue over who's numbers are accurate.

So let's go with your number of 1000, you seem to be ok with 1000 people dying every year from the flu, you've been going about your day for your entire life without even thinking about it.

So 2 questions

What number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to reach for you to self isolate?

If the government didn't enforce self isolation would you voluntarily do it?
Would you tell your boss "look the numbers are X now so I won't be back until they get under X?"
Be honest

I have. I’ve told a number of bosses either the guy coughing an wheezing everywhere goes home or I do and I’ll be calling work cover if I do. Very effective.

So what number does the yearly flu death toll have to reach for you to start quarantining yourself?

Your question is irrelevant and you know it. If people are sick near me I let them know what I think and what they should do. Other options are available for Influenza to protect yourself rather than self isolation that are not currently available for Covid19. With Covid19 the only substantive protection currently available is physical distancing.

Even with all the options available to protect yourself from the flu, what number does the death toll have to be at for you to self isolate from it?

10k? 20k? C'mon man, what's your limit?

You really are talking nonsense now.

This is simple risk management, at the moment it seems you've assessed the risk of dying or getting the flu or spreading the flu and determined that it's at level you're willing to live with.

I'm just asking what level does it have to get to before you no longer become comfortable with it?

Because I find it strange that someone would feel the risk is too high at 113 deaths at a median age 80 yet doesn't know their risk tolerance level for the flu and seems comfortable with 1000+ deaths.

Maybe some food for thought

You already know why the death rate is very low. It’s been explained you you a number of different ways. 113 Covid19 dead is not the risk, the risk is if we do nothing it’s 100s of thousands dead. You know that you are pushing a false agenda. But hey keep to your narrative champ.

So what number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to be for you to self isolate?

You seem to be ok with the number it's been at for however many years you've been alive, I'm guessing you have been going about your day and not been concerned about dying of the flu.

113 covid deaths and a median age of 80 and people are freaking out and locking themselves inside.

1500 - 3000 flu deaths every year for your entire life and you go about your day not even thinking about it.

These are the FACTS

They are a distortion of the facts

 

[Hangonaminute]

In Australia, influenza on average causes 1,500 to 3,000 deaths a year.
And life goes on as normal.

As of 17th of July 2020 only 113 people have died of covid19 in Australia
The median age of death is 80
And they put us in lockdown.

Something just doesn't make sense here.

How many do you think would have died if we'd just carried on as if it was normal? It's insane to argue this is no worse than the flu.

I don't know, how many?

You seem to be ok with 3000 dying every year from the flu while you carry on with life as usual, so where do you draw the death toll line? 3100? 4000?

How many have to die before you start locking yourself down?

Where did you get 3,000 from?

Official stats from 2019 show between 900-1000 deaths.

2018 was an oddly high year in terms of fatalities, with just over 1,000. Still a far cry from 3,000.

Whether you like it or not, even the very low end estimates show that covid 19 has a far higher fatality rate than influenza a and b.

About 85% of people are vaccinated against a and b, which makes an enormous difference in terms of infections and fatalities.

As we all know, covid-19 has no vaccine, so it could very likely lead to over 100,000 deaths plus an unknown number of secondary deaths as a result of an overwhelmed health system.

I'm not going to argue over who's numbers are accurate.

So let's go with your number of 1000, you seem to be ok with 1000 people dying every year from the flu, you've been going about your day for your entire life without even thinking about it.

So 2 questions

What number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to reach for you to self isolate?

If the government didn't enforce self isolation would you voluntarily do it?
Would you tell your boss "look the numbers are X now so I won't be back until they get under X?"
Be honest

I have. I’ve told a number of bosses either the guy coughing an wheezing everywhere goes home or I do and I’ll be calling work cover if I do. Very effective.

So what number does the yearly flu death toll have to reach for you to start quarantining yourself?

Your question is irrelevant and you know it. If people are sick near me I let them know what I think and what they should do. Other options are available for Influenza to protect yourself rather than self isolation that are not currently available for Covid19. With Covid19 the only substantive protection currently available is physical distancing.

Even with all the options available to protect yourself from the flu, what number does the death toll have to be at for you to self isolate from it?

10k? 20k? C'mon man, what's your limit?

You really are talking nonsense now.

This is simple risk management, at the moment it seems you've assessed the risk of dying or getting the flu or spreading the flu and determined that it's at level you're willing to live with.

I'm just asking what level does it have to get to before you no longer become comfortable with it?

Because I find it strange that someone would feel the risk is too high at 113 deaths at a median age 80 yet doesn't know their risk tolerance level for the flu and seems comfortable with 1000+ deaths.

Maybe some food for thought

You already know why the death rate is very low. It’s been explained you you a number of different ways. 113 Covid19 dead is not the risk, the risk is if we do nothing it’s 100s of thousands dead. You know that you are pushing a false agenda. But hey keep to your narrative champ.

So what number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to be for you to self isolate?

You seem to be ok with the number it's been at for however many years you've been alive, I'm guessing you have been going about your day and not been concerned about dying of the flu.

113 covid deaths and a median age of 80 and people are freaking out and locking themselves inside.

1500 - 3000 flu deaths every year for your entire life and you go about your day not even thinking about it.

These are the FACTS

They are a distortion of the facts

Please point out exactly where I'm distorting

 

[Hangonaminute]

In Australia, influenza on average causes 1,500 to 3,000 deaths a year.
And life goes on as normal.

As of 17th of July 2020 only 113 people have died of covid19 in Australia
The median age of death is 80
And they put us in lockdown.

Something just doesn't make sense here.

How many do you think would have died if we'd just carried on as if it was normal? It's insane to argue this is no worse than the flu.

I don't know, how many?

You seem to be ok with 3000 dying every year from the flu while you carry on with life as usual, so where do you draw the death toll line? 3100? 4000?

How many have to die before you start locking yourself down?

Where did you get 3,000 from?

Official stats from 2019 show between 900-1000 deaths.

2018 was an oddly high year in terms of fatalities, with just over 1,000. Still a far cry from 3,000.

Whether you like it or not, even the very low end estimates show that covid 19 has a far higher fatality rate than influenza a and b.

About 85% of people are vaccinated against a and b, which makes an enormous difference in terms of infections and fatalities.

As we all know, covid-19 has no vaccine, so it could very likely lead to over 100,000 deaths plus an unknown number of secondary deaths as a result of an overwhelmed health system.

I'm not going to argue over who's numbers are accurate.

So let's go with your number of 1000, you seem to be ok with 1000 people dying every year from the flu, you've been going about your day for your entire life without even thinking about it.

So 2 questions

What number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to reach for you to self isolate?

If the government didn't enforce self isolation would you voluntarily do it?
Would you tell your boss "look the numbers are X now so I won't be back until they get under X?"
Be honest

I have. I’ve told a number of bosses either the guy coughing an wheezing everywhere goes home or I do and I’ll be calling work cover if I do. Very effective.

So what number does the yearly flu death toll have to reach for you to start quarantining yourself?

Your question is irrelevant and you know it. If people are sick near me I let them know what I think and what they should do. Other options are available for Influenza to protect yourself rather than self isolation that are not currently available for Covid19. With Covid19 the only substantive protection currently available is physical distancing.

Even with all the options available to protect yourself from the flu, what number does the death toll have to be at for you to self isolate from it?

10k? 20k? C'mon man, what's your limit?

You really are talking nonsense now.

This is simple risk management, at the moment it seems you've assessed the risk of dying or getting the flu or spreading the flu and determined that it's at level you're willing to live with.

I'm just asking what level does it have to get to before you no longer become comfortable with it?

Because I find it strange that someone would feel the risk is too high at 113 deaths at a median age 80 yet doesn't know their risk tolerance level for the flu and seems comfortable with 1000+ deaths.

Maybe some food for thought

You already know why the death rate is very low. It’s been explained you you a number of different ways. 113 Covid19 dead is not the risk, the risk is if we do nothing it’s 100s of thousands dead. You know that you are pushing a false agenda. But hey keep to your narrative champ.

So what number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to be for you to self isolate?

You seem to be ok with the number it's been at for however many years you've been alive, I'm guessing you have been going about your day and not been concerned about dying of the flu.

113 covid deaths and a median age of 80 and people are freaking out and locking themselves inside.

1500 - 3000 flu deaths every year for your entire life and you go about your day not even thinking about it.

These are the FACTS

They are a distortion of the facts

You're doing well for someone who won't engage with me. ?

 

[cochise]

In Australia, influenza on average causes 1,500 to 3,000 deaths a year.
And life goes on as normal.

As of 17th of July 2020 only 113 people have died of covid19 in Australia
The median age of death is 80
And they put us in lockdown.

Something just doesn't make sense here.

How many do you think would have died if we'd just carried on as if it was normal? It's insane to argue this is no worse than the flu.

I don't know, how many?

You seem to be ok with 3000 dying every year from the flu while you carry on with life as usual, so where do you draw the death toll line? 3100? 4000?

How many have to die before you start locking yourself down?

Where did you get 3,000 from?

Official stats from 2019 show between 900-1000 deaths.

2018 was an oddly high year in terms of fatalities, with just over 1,000. Still a far cry from 3,000.

Whether you like it or not, even the very low end estimates show that covid 19 has a far higher fatality rate than influenza a and b.

About 85% of people are vaccinated against a and b, which makes an enormous difference in terms of infections and fatalities.

As we all know, covid-19 has no vaccine, so it could very likely lead to over 100,000 deaths plus an unknown number of secondary deaths as a result of an overwhelmed health system.

I'm not going to argue over who's numbers are accurate.

So let's go with your number of 1000, you seem to be ok with 1000 people dying every year from the flu, you've been going about your day for your entire life without even thinking about it.

So 2 questions

What number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to reach for you to self isolate?

If the government didn't enforce self isolation would you voluntarily do it?
Would you tell your boss "look the numbers are X now so I won't be back until they get under X?"
Be honest

I have. I’ve told a number of bosses either the guy coughing an wheezing everywhere goes home or I do and I’ll be calling work cover if I do. Very effective.

So what number does the yearly flu death toll have to reach for you to start quarantining yourself?

Your question is irrelevant and you know it. If people are sick near me I let them know what I think and what they should do. Other options are available for Influenza to protect yourself rather than self isolation that are not currently available for Covid19. With Covid19 the only substantive protection currently available is physical distancing.

Even with all the options available to protect yourself from the flu, what number does the death toll have to be at for you to self isolate from it?

10k? 20k? C'mon man, what's your limit?

You really are talking nonsense now.

This is simple risk management, at the moment it seems you've assessed the risk of dying or getting the flu or spreading the flu and determined that it's at level you're willing to live with.

I'm just asking what level does it have to get to before you no longer become comfortable with it?

Because I find it strange that someone would feel the risk is too high at 113 deaths at a median age 80 yet doesn't know their risk tolerance level for the flu and seems comfortable with 1000+ deaths.

Maybe some food for thought

You already know why the death rate is very low. It’s been explained you you a number of different ways. 113 Covid19 dead is not the risk, the risk is if we do nothing it’s 100s of thousands dead. You know that you are pushing a false agenda. But hey keep to your narrative champ.

So what number does the yearly death toll for the flu have to be for you to self isolate?

You seem to be ok with the number it's been at for however many years you've been alive, I'm guessing you have been going about your day and not been concerned about dying of the flu.

113 covid deaths and a median age of 80 and people are freaking out and locking themselves inside.

1500 - 3000 flu deaths every year for your entire life and you go about your day not even thinking about it.

These are the FACTS

They are a distortion of the facts

You're doing well for someone who won't engage with me. ?

Na, I actually just like making you look silly.