Coronavirus General Discussion

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Kriegsspiel » Fri May 15, 2020 5:08 pm

It depends on what gets counted as a "smoking-related" fatality.

Ditto for coronavirus.
All of humanity’s problems with coronavirus stem from a man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.
- Blasé Kriegsspiel
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10278
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by dualstow » Fri May 15, 2020 5:37 pm

Wow, look at Russia catching up. 🇷🇺
https://ncov2019.live/

—-
barrett wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 4:37 pm
I see that smoking in the US causes about 480,000 deaths annually.
...
Is it fair to say that the virus is about as dangerous as long-term smoking?
The numerical comparisons keep coming up despite articles that put it into perspective. i don’t think it’s fair to say it’s only as dangerous, even if it turns out to be technically (numerically) true purely in the context of death counts. Although second-hand (and more recently discovered, third-hand) smoke is dangerous, it obviously doesn’t spread to other people the way the virus does.

Smoking doesn’t wipe out the economy the way the virus has. It hasn’t starved anyone.
Yes, it makes healthcare more expensive, but it also generates revenue.

I’m not defending smoking. O0
I just think it’s too parochial to only look at those numbers.
Luckin Coffee, another reason why I mostly stick to the domestic (U.S.) market
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3459
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pugchief » Fri May 15, 2020 5:48 pm

dualstow wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 5:37 pm

Smoking doesn’t wipe out the economy the way the virus has.
The virus hasn't tanked the economy, the government did.
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by D1984 » Fri May 15, 2020 6:08 pm

pugchief wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 5:48 pm
dualstow wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 5:37 pm

Smoking doesn’t wipe out the economy the way the virus has.
The virus hasn't tanked the economy, the government did.
You assume that people are just going to magically start shopping and spending (and being in crowded stores/restaurants/gyms/hair salons/auto dealerships/airplanes/etc) like before if state/local governments lifted all restrictions? I know that I certainly won't be doing any more of the above than necessary until either:

A. A safe and effective vaccine is developed and widely available, and/or,

B. A safe and effective cure/treatment is discovered/developed.

C. Truly representative (i.e. not self-selected by people who want to be tested because they think they might've been exposed to SARS-COV2 or who otherwise volunteer to be tested even if for no other reason than to see if they have already had a symptomless infection and thus might be immune) antibody serology studies are done showing that the IFR for COVID-19 isn't much worse than for, say, influenza during an averagely bad flu season (i.e. not a 1918-type scenario) and that accurately compares COVID-19 IFR to flu IFR and not study/studies that "cheat" by comparing COVID IFR to influenza CFR to make COVID-19 look more relatively benign that it really is.

Given that I am 35 and relatively healthy, how many 55+ people (or people with chronic illnesses) are going to be making the same decision I did (hunker down at home as much as possible and go out/buy/spend/consume no more than absolutely necessary) even if state authorities lift all restrictions?
Last edited by D1984 on Fri May 15, 2020 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FarmerD
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:37 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by FarmerD » Fri May 15, 2020 6:09 pm

sophie wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 3:18 pm
So much for hydroxychloroquine as a COVID treatment, not that this should come as a surprise:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410

I am sorry that this drug ended up being used as a political football, resulting in raising a lot of false hopes. Other treatments are perhaps more promising (like remdesivir) but they're at best partially effective. Vaccination is pretty much the only solution for viruses.

I can't wait to hear how the anti-vaxxers will react to the COVID vaccine when it comes out.
Most of the medical experts (Dr Seheult for example) have always claimed that hydroxychloroquine acts as a zinc ionophore (and zinc inside cells inhibit virus) yet several studies that have come out recently claiming it doesn't work are not giving patients any zinc. Supposedly the aged, diabetics, obese, ie. people at risk for Covid-19 are almost always deficient in zinc. I'm not saying hydroxychloroquine works, but I would like to see studies where zinc is included in the regimen.
Any thoughts Sophie?
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3459
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pugchief » Fri May 15, 2020 6:46 pm

D1984 wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 6:08 pm
pugchief wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 5:48 pm
dualstow wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 5:37 pm

Smoking doesn’t wipe out the economy the way the virus has.
The virus hasn't tanked the economy, the government did.
You assume that people are just going to magically start shopping and spending (and being in crowded stores/restaurants/gyms/hair salons/auto dealerships/airplanes/etc) like before if state/local governments lifted all restrictions? I know that I certainly won't be doing any more of the above than necessary until either:

A. A safe and effective vaccine is developed and widely available, and/or,

B. A safe and effective cure/treatment is discovered/developed.

C. Truly representative (i.e. not self-selected by people who want to be tested because they think they might've been exposed to SARS-COV2 or who otherwise volunteer to be tested even if for no other reason than to see if they have already had a symptomless infection and thus might be immune) antibody serology studies are done showing that the IFR for COVID-19 isn't much worse than for, say, influenza during an averagely bad flu season (i.e. not a 1918-type scenario) and that accurately compares COVID-19 IFR to flu IFR and not study/studies that "cheat" by comparing COVID IFR to influenza CFR to make COVID-19 look more relatively benign that it really is.

Given that I am 35 and relatively healthy, how many 55+ people (or people with chronic illnesses) are going to be making the same decision I did (hunker down at home as much as possible and go out/buy/spend/consume no more than absolutely necessary) even if state authorities lift all restrictions?
This of course assumes that the correct thing to do was lock everything down and scare the crap out of everyone, which I am no longer sure was the correct course of action. If we had treated this just like any flu season, would anything have been different? Sweden seems to say no. I guess we'll never know.
User avatar
Dieter
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 10:51 am

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Dieter » Fri May 15, 2020 7:25 pm

barrett wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 4:37 pm
When I look around online I see that smoking in the US causes about 480,000 deaths annually.

COVID-19 has killed about 88,000 in two months more or less, for an annualized rate of 528,000 deaths. And it looks like only about 14% of Americans smoke.

Is it fair to say that the virus is about as dangerous as long-term smoking?
What is the daily growth on smoking deaths compared to Coronavirus?

Yesterday 1,572 died from COVID-18. (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/)

578,000 a year if rate doesn't change.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

We shall see what happens with the reopenings.


As a non-snooker, I appreciate that smoking isn't allowed on resteraunt / indoors in California so I don't have to deal with second hand smoke.

I see masks similarly.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10278
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by dualstow » Fri May 15, 2020 7:34 pm

pugchief wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 5:48 pm
dualstow wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 5:37 pm

Smoking doesn’t wipe out the economy the way the virus has.
The virus hasn't tanked the economy, the government did.
I'm not going to argue with you, my friend, because it's been done in this thread already (plus I'm in a very pro-dentist mood after my visit the other day), but I respectfully disagree.
Luckin Coffee, another reason why I mostly stick to the domestic (U.S.) market
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by Smith1776 » Fri May 15, 2020 8:14 pm

If the government didn't tank the economy, the virus probably would have anyway. I think the big difference would have been a bunch of unorganized, fear-based shutdowns rather than the comparatively ordered one we have now.

We'd still have the conspiracy theories and the fake news, except it would be the opposite of what we're currently seeing.

"BILL GATES AND GOVERNMENT EXPERIMENTING ON GLOBAL POPULATION WITH SUPER VIRUS AND INTENTIONALLY WITHHOLDING VACCINE."

Overall, I think the lockdowns were a positive thing. This could have been way worse if hospital capacity had been overwhelmed everywhere at once. Also, imagine the chaos that would have occurred if people were refusing to go to work without a specific shelter in place order to back them up on that decision.
For the money you can't afford to lose, why would you invest it in anything other than the PP? ???
Check out the Goldsmith PP: https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9613
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2642
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by vnatale » Fri May 15, 2020 8:20 pm

Dieter wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 7:25 pm



As a non-snooker, I appreciate that smoking isn't allowed on resteraunt / indoors in California so I don't have to deal with second hand smoke.
There used to the old days when you went to a restaurant and there were smoking and non-smoking section. At the time we were not aware of the dangers of second hand smoke and people smoking around me then or now has otherwise never bothered me.

One day I was working side-by-side with someone for several hours and after awhile I asked him if he'd given up smoking. He said, "Vinny! I've smoked five cigarettes while we've been working together!" That's how little it concerned me then or, obviously, (did not even) noticed it.

But back to the restaurant days, every time they'd ask me if I wanted the smoking or non-smoking section I'd turn to the person I was with and say, "I wish, instead, that they'd asked me if I wanted the loud people's section or the quiet people's section."

Which section do you think I preferred?

Vinny
"I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3459
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by pugchief » Fri May 15, 2020 8:27 pm

vnatale wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 8:20 pm
Dieter wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 7:25 pm



As a non-snooker, I appreciate that smoking isn't allowed on resteraunt / indoors in California so I don't have to deal with second hand smoke.
There used to the old days when you went to a restaurant and there were smoking and non-smoking section. At the time we were not aware of the dangers of second hand smoke and people smoking around me then or now has otherwise never bothered me.

One day I was working side-by-side with someone for several hours and after awhile I asked him if he'd given up smoking. He said, "Vinny! I've smoked five cigarettes while we've been working together!" That's how little it concerned me then or, obviously, (did not even) noticed it.

But back to the restaurant days, every time they'd ask me if I wanted the smoking or non-smoking section I'd turn to the person I was with and say, "I wish, instead, that they'd asked me if I wanted the loud people's section or the quiet people's section."

Which section do you think I preferred?

Vinny
With me, it's the no kids section now that my kids are grown.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2642
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Coronavirus General Discussion

Post by vnatale » Fri May 15, 2020 9:13 pm

pugchief wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 8:27 pm
vnatale wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 8:20 pm
Dieter wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 7:25 pm



As a non-snooker, I appreciate that smoking isn't allowed on resteraunt / indoors in California so I don't have to deal with second hand smoke.
There used to the old days when you went to a restaurant and there were smoking and non-smoking section. At the time we were not aware of the dangers of second hand smoke and people smoking around me then or now has otherwise never bothered me.

One day I was working side-by-side with someone for several hours and after awhile I asked him if he'd given up smoking. He said, "Vinny! I've smoked five cigarettes while we've been working together!" That's how little it concerned me then or, obviously, (did not even) noticed it.

But back to the restaurant days, every time they'd ask me if I wanted the smoking or non-smoking section I'd turn to the person I was with and say, "I wish, instead, that they'd asked me if I wanted the loud people's section or the quiet people's section."

Which section do you think I preferred?

Vinny
With me, it's the no kids section now that my kids are grown.
Kids are generally almost always a plus for me.

Vinny
"I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats."
Post Reply