Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TD1]

What caused it, if you don't mind my asking?

[MaximumZero]

What caused it, if you don't mind my asking?

It? That's a biiiiiig question. So I don't clutter the thread, I'm going to put the answer in a spoiler.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It is a lot of things. It is Spondlylolisthesis, Degenerative Disc Disease, a Pars Interarticularsis Fracture, a very minor case of Spina Bifida, about a billion microfractures, and verbatim quote from my neurosurgeon, "shitty bones." I have terrible genetics and a worse diet. I also have a lifetime of professional level martial arts (15 years), cage fighting (a record of 78-12-0-1 in the cage,) and tournaments (about 200, including 6 kickboxing grand prix tourneys where I fought five or six times in one day,) behind me, a love of contact sports, and a complete lack of self-preservation.

To top all of that off, I was in a hit-and-run car wreck in '18 that broke my L5 vertebra (insurance did not pay out because I got no police report,) worked on it for almost a year, and when my nerves got so damaged that I could barely feel my legs enough to walk, I got put on Long Term Disability. I've had a spinal fusion surgery that the screws have pushed themselves out and been replaced, and are now likely doing it again based on my most recent x-rays.

My spine is bad. I was born with my L4 and L5 vertebra pretty much twisted in half. They never closed properly, but they aren't leaking cerebrospinal fluid, so it's not much of a worry. The spinous processes (the ridges pointing out the back of the spine,) are pretty much all missing, if not a nub barely 1cm long. It's very likely that I broke them all off at some point, either free running or getting my ass kicked in the ring/cage.

[itisnotlogical]

My life is a joke. I don't get to be happy for any real length of time. I guess I don't deserve it. The few things that make me truly, genuinely happy, I have to kick and scratch to hold on to for as long as I can before they're ripped out of my hands again. I wish my dad had worn a condom. Why couldn't you bag it up Ron, you irresponsible prick?

[Quaksna]

I wish my dad had worn a condom.

Wrong!

But I feel you, pal. Now that our beloved government put us to quarantine, it just added to my emptiness. Heh, I remember my reaction when they closed churches for public. I served on one last mass and then, I completely lost it. I was screaming, weeping, running away from people... I was nuts for like two hours, then it stopped.

It was awful. I remember talking to myself, when someone asked me something, I answered to myself, I was constantly thinking and considering every single little thing that I knew I should do, if it's worth it... It's hard to explain, something like:

"Should I pull keys outta my pocket? Should I open the door? Why? Why?!! For what?"

And if I recall correctly, I finished these actions only by saying to myself it doesn't matter anyway. Phew.

Last time I went temporarily insane, what'll come next...

[Yoink]

Edit: oops, didn't intend to start a new page with this.   
To put it mildly, IINL, I know how you feel. Just... hang in there and keep on kicking, scratching and clawing out every scrap of enjoyment from this dunghill called existence. You're doing alright if you ask me.   

[McTraveller]

We have destroyed - or at least severely damaged - free society worldwide to save a few (statistically speaking*; I'm not trying to demean any individual; I mean I'm worried about my elderly relatives**) people.

This makes me sad.  And I tend to try and be an optimist and voice for positivitiy...


*

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Seriously - it would take 80 million deaths to even be 1% of the world population.  Even with the "worst case" fatality rates of 3% or whatever (some epidemiologists think South Korea's 0.6% CFR is more likely the true rate because they have a higher test coverage - still bad at 6x the flu), this would mean about 2.7 billion people would have to be infected, about 1/3 of the entire planet.  That 2.7B is 20 doublings over the current 200k infected. Do we realistically think this is going to maintain a 1 week doubling time for the next 20 weeks?  If the CFR is 0.6% it's not even possible to get 1% of the world population to die even if every single person on the planet got the disease.

**

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

But to be fair, everyone dies, and my elderly relatives are elderly.  I want them to pass, however they do, enjoying life - not terrified and huddling in their home.

[Reelya]

200K is a vast under-estimate of the current infected. That's only the people we've tested.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

The story is that there are basically no cases in India. however, that's because India has nearly non-existent testing
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/india-poor-testing-rate-masked-coronavirus-cases-200318040314568.html

India is still doing the "only travelers from affected nations are allowed to be tested" bit. Seriously, India alone, with it's extremely lax testing regime and crowded urban centers with poor sanitation could end up accounting for 1 billion infections.

EDIT:

Also, as far as South Korea goes, the fact that they aggressively tested was part of the reason they had a low fatality rate: if you intervene sooner and your hospitals don't get overloaded then there's a much better prognosis. It's not accurate to claim that the base-rate if you don't test at all would be the same ~1.0% of known infections. That's only if you aggressively test and treat people as soon as you know they're sick. South Korea got onto it right away and that ensured they didn't have so many cases that it crashed their medical system, which is what happened in Italy. So it can really go either way.

[McTraveller]

Regardless of the true vs reported cases:

I guess I have a different worldview - I'm not of the opinion that we should do "whatever it takes" to save lives.  It's like a real-world ethics problem:  is it worth adversely affecting the lives of 97% of the population in perpetuity to keep 3% of the population alive a little longer?

[hector13]

The more people infected, the more likely it is to mutate, perhaps to something that will much more adversely affect that 97%.

[ChairmanPoo]

Regardless of the true vs reported cases:

I guess I have a different worldview - I'm not of the opinion that we should do "whatever it takes" to save lives.  It's like a real-world ethics problem:  is it worth adversely affecting the lives of 97% of the population in perpetuity to keep 3% of the population alive a little longer?

The problem is not that 3%, (or maybe as low as 0.5%, depending on how many silent carriers there are) of the population will die
The problem is that this virus, if unchecked, infects EVERYONE at the same time. There's not enough beds for everyone. And that means thousands dead from coronavirus... and what is not coronavirus.

If you burst an appendix and need urgent surgery, you might die due to lack of beds, even if your personal odds of dying from coronavirus are good.

[ChairmanPoo]

Also, as far as South Korea goes, the fact that they aggressively tested was part of the reason they had a low fatality rate: if you intervene sooner and your hospitals don't get overloaded then there's a much better prognosis. It's not accurate to claim that the base-rate if you don't test at all would be the same ~1.0% of known infections. That's only if you aggressively test and treat people as soon as you know they're sick. South Korea got onto it right away and that ensured they didn't have so many cases that it crashed their medical system, which is what happened in Italy. So it can really go either way.

There are very strong hints that the infected with the identificable clinical presentation are just the tip of the iceberg

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/science.abb3221?utm_campaign=SciMag&utm_source=JHubbard&utm_medium=Facebook

Now, this is an inferred number. We don't know the exact number. But it's not the only study. People in Italy are saying the same (an Italian epidemiologist was estimating that as much as 70% of the total cases might be "silent".

There are also observational studies. In China they detected 24 covid positive patients around one who was infected and presenting the disease. Only 5% went on to develop symptoms. The rest? They were positive for covid and could spread it. But no symptoms. Most of them only had some radiological changes. But others, the youngest, not even that.
https://www.physiciansweekly.com/clinical-characteristics-of-24-asymptomatic-infections-with-covid-19-screened-among-close-contacts-in-nanjing-china/?fbclid=IwAR1O4y7u4-yj2_d_mhUlsD41-XzlwzGNpB6s-X1YC_-87Qj5kNR518wagsQ


You know, I actually got a message about this two weeks ago, and did not think much of it at the time. But now everyone is talking about it.
There's even a Nature editorial:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00760-8?utm_content=121699907&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-126949064159706&fbclid=IwAR1O4y7u4-yj2_d_mhUlsD41-XzlwzGNpB6s-X1YC_-87Qj5kNR518wagsQ

It's even spreading to popsci at this point. National Geographic has started to post stuff about silent spreaders and historical cases.


I honestly  thought all this a bad scifi novel until shortly ago. I'm losing the grip now.

[Lord Shonus]

To put this into perspective, we have 88 confirmed cases in Ohio. The problem is that some of those confirmed cases are people who have not traveled to regions that are known to have it, or known to have been in contact with people who have thus traveled. This means that the virus is being community-spread, which suggests that either these people are extremely unlucky, or we have a floor figure of 100,000 cases - 1% of the population carrying a bug is usually necessary for this sort of spread. If even half this number fall seriously ill, we're looking at a colossal drain on medical supplies and hospital space.

[Iduno]

Regardless of the true vs reported cases:

I guess I have a different worldview - I'm not of the opinion that we should do "whatever it takes" to save lives.  It's like a real-world ethics problem:  is it worth adversely affecting the lives of 97% of the population in perpetuity to keep 3% of the population alive a little longer?

No, but there are also a large number of people who will not quite die, which is unpleasant.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00760-8?utm_content=121699907&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-126949064159706&fbclid=IwAR1O4y7u4-yj2_d_mhUlsD41-XzlwzGNpB6s-X1YC_-87Qj5kNR518wagsQ

That's the ugliest link I've ever seen. Try https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00760-8

[Yoink]

I can't really remember the dream I had, but I'm pretty sure it was far better than reality.   

[Iduno]

I can't really remember the dream I had, but I'm pretty sure it was far better than reality.   

I'm sure it was, too, man.