I’m feeling annoyed by people who keep saying

[Ginevra]

It’s “negative” to talk about deaths, equipment shortages, leaders who have fumbled the ball on this and who urge us instead to talk about “all the recoveries”. That seems like so much Polyanna nonsense to me. And for any of us in an area still on the upwards side of the curve, recoveries are not very meaningful because the bulk of the cases are still in the active phase. 

Maybe I’m unusual but I would rather deal with the facts, however crappy they may be. I think minimizing the potential of CV19 was one of the biggest mistakes, right from the top, in the US. You can’t be prepared for battle if you just whistle a happy tune and say it’s gonna be fine. 

[Ethel Mertz]

I have a sister like that.  Some of us are ants and some of us are grasshoppers. And, yeah, it's annoying. 

[marbel]

People say things like that when they are tired of hearing nothing but bad news.  For some people focusing on negativity worsens their anxiety. A person can be realistic about the problem and be doing their part to mitigate it but still want to point out the positive things that are happening (people recovering, companies retooling factories to make medical equipment or ramping up mask production, etc).  It can be a coping mechanism.

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2020 by marbel

[Tanaqui]

That's right up there with "let's not bring politics into this" for rage factor, in my eyes.

[MEmama]

17 minutes ago, Quill said:

It’s “negative” to talk about deaths, equipment shortages, leaders who have fumbled the ball on this and who urge us instead to talk about “all the recoveries”. That seems like so much Polyanna nonsense to me. And for any of us in an area still on the upwards side of the curve, recoveries are not very meaningful because the bulk of the cases are still in the active phase. 

Maybe I’m unusual but I would rather deal with the facts, however crappy they may be. I think minimizing the potential of CV19 was one of the biggest mistakes, right from the top, in the US. You can’t be prepared for battle if you just whistle a happy tune and say it’s gonna be fine. 

Yup. My boss would rather be blatantly, transparently lied to by the PTB than “hear doom and gloom”. Makes it easier to keep ones head in the ... sand... I guess. 😡

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, marbel said:

People say things like that when they are tired of hearing nothing but bad news.  For some people focusing on negativity worsens their anxiety. A person can be realistic about the problem and be doing their part to mitigate it but still want to point out the positive things that are happening (people recovering, companies retooling factories to make medical equipment or ramping up mask production, etc).  It can be a coping mechanism.

 

 

Yeah, I get this, but there is literally a meme that says something like, “98% of people recover from Coronavirus! Bet you won’t see *that* on a news report! Let’s not be so negative!” 

I think that’s dumb. When your (not you-you) mom/dad/neighbor or friend dies of it, it isn’t going to matter to you if most people recover. 

[marbel]

Just now, Quill said:

Yeah, I get this, but there is literally a meme that says something like, “98% of people recover from Coronavirus! Bet you won’t see *that* on a news report! Let’s not be so negative!” 

I think that’s dumb. When your (not you-you) mom/dad/neighbor or friend dies of it, it isn’t going to matter to you if most people recover. 

OK, if you're talking about memes and not real conversations... then,  yeah.

I am sick of all the memes, positive and negative, but I have a special hatred for any that include "bet you won't see that..." "bet no one will share this..."  That stuff is just noise.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, marbel said:

OK, if you're talking about memes and not real conversations... then,  yeah.

I am sick of all the memes, positive and negative, but I have a special hatred for any that include "bet you won't see that..." "bet no one will share this..."  That stuff is just noise.

For sure! 

[MEmama]

11 minutes ago, marbel said:

People say things like that when they are tired of hearing nothing but bad news.  For some people focusing on negativity worsens their anxiety. A person can be realistic about the problem and be doing their part to mitigate it but still want to point out the positive things that are happening (people recovering, companies retooling factories to make medical equipment or ramping up mask production, etc).  It can be a coping mechanism.

 

 

 

Absolutely. And definitely we all have coping mechanisms. ((Hugs))

I didn’t read Quill's post as a judgement against coping. The insistence on “only good news (even if they are lies or completely fabricated) can be dangerous, though. When people won’t learn the facts, don’t know how to differentiate between opinion and science, aren’t interested or willing to change behavior because they “feel” they know best and therefore don’t face reality...there are consequences.

Maybe I’m reading too much into the original post. 
 

[Tanaqui]

14 minutes ago, Quill said:

Yeah, I get this, but there is literally a meme that says something like, “98% of people recover from Coronavirus! Bet you won’t see *that* on a news report! Let’s not be so negative!” 

I think that’s dumb. When your (not you-you) mom/dad/neighbor or friend dies of it, it isn’t going to matter to you if most people recover. 

 

If the entire population of the world got coronavirus, and 2% died, that's 160,000,000 people, just from the disease. Think about the Holocaust, and then just keep doubling that number until you're in the ballpark - and we don't know yet what the long-term effect of the disease is on survivors. (Another way to think of this is that 3x the normal worldwide mortality for the year, just due to the disease.)

Then, of course, many more people would die from lack of treatment for injuries or other disease because the hospitals would be overwhelmed with coronavirus patients. More needless deaths. We'd probably see an uptick in deaths due to suicide and substance abuse as well.

Of course, even the most wildly pessimistic projections do not, I think, assume that literally everybody will fall ill... but certainly a lot of people would if we don't take some pretty stringent measures to prevent this. Edit: And of course, the mortality rate of a disease depends in some part on the number of infections. Too many infections to treat = higher mortality rate.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Tanaqui

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Absolutely. And definitely we all have coping mechanisms. ((Hugs))

I didn’t read Quill's post as a judgement against coping. The insistence on “only good news (even if they are lies or completely fabricated) can be dangerous, though. When people won’t learn the facts, don’t know how to differentiate between opinion and science, aren’t interested or willing to change behavior because they “feel” they know best and therefore don’t face reality...there are consequences.

Maybe I’m reading too much into the original post. 
 

You’re not. 

That’s a great summary. And, FWIW, I LOVE to hear stories and lists of companies and individuals who are helping in amazing ways, like local distilleries making hand-sanitizer or restaurant owners who have committed to paying their staff during shutdown. (My BIL is a chef and now has no job; I sure wish he was at a restaurant doing this!) There is a post on the long thread about many private individuals and companies doing things to help out. I LOVE that information! 

What bugs me is the insistance that we should *only* focus on those positive things. I guess for myself, the coping mechanism is and always has been information. Let me understand the situation thoroughly and then I will know what *I can do* to help my family and community survive this storm. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

If the entire population of the world got coronavirus, and 2% died, that's 160,000,000 people, just from the disease. Think about the Holocaust, and then just keep doubling that number until you're in the ballpark - and we don't know yet what the long-term effect of the disease is on survivors. (Another way to think of this is that 3x the normal worldwide mortality for the year, just due to the disease.)

Then, of course, many more people would die from lack of treatment for injuries or other disease because the hospitals would be overwhelmed with coronavirus patients. More needless deaths. We'd probably see an uptick in deaths due to suicide and substance abuse as well.

Of course, even the most wildly pessimistic projections do not, I think, assume that literally everybody will fall ill... but certainly a lot of people would if we don't take some pretty stringent measures to prevent this.

This is what I was thinking, except I’m not a mathy person and I have not gotten hard numbers like this. 

I have said to my dh, just consider what happens if all of us in this household get it at roughly the same time. Think about how that would be if the person in the best condition is ds15, with us two very sick or needing hospitalization. That is very ominous to me. 

[Tanaqui]

16 minutes ago, Quill said:

This is what I was thinking, except I’m not a mathy person and I have not gotten hard numbers like this. 

I have said to my dh, just consider what happens if all of us in this household get it at roughly the same time. Think about how that would be if the person in the best condition is ds15, with us two very sick or needing hospitalization. That is very ominous to me. 

 

Well, about 57 million people worldwide die every year, so that absolutely terrifying zombie apocalypse scenario is more deaths than that from coronavirus alone. Though, again, even the worst projections do not have all 7.8 billion of us getting the disease.

What really upsets me, numbers wise, is people who go "Oh, but it's mostly only a risk to some people, and I don't know spend much time with any of those people - those are the ones who should stay home, not me". Unless you are a hermit and live in the woods (dream job!) you almost certainly spend time every day with people in one of the following categories of "seniors, asthmatics, diabetics, people with heart disease, people with compromised immune systems" and you DEFINITELY spend time with people who live or closely work with those folks. There is approximately a 0% chance that you spreading disease willy-nilly won't affect somebody in a high risk group, even if they do all decide never to leave home again so you can have your fun.

[SamanthaCarter]

Nothing wrong with messages of hope when hope is needed. 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

Yeah, I get this, but there is literally a meme that says something like, “98% of people recover from Coronavirus! Bet you won’t see *that* on a news report! Let’s not be so negative!” 

I think that’s dumb. When your (not you-you) mom/dad/neighbor or friend dies of it, it isn’t going to matter to you if most people recover. 

UGH, I saw that. I want t say "if they say the death rate is 2-3 percent, that is the same thing as saying 97-98 percent recover! Not may fault you can't do the math!!!!!!"

[Paige]

I just want the truth. Talk about the risks, talk about the deaths and recoveries, give me the best case scenario, the worst case scenario, and the most likely scenario. I think the mixed messages we have been getting creates way more anxiety than one consistent, honest message would. 

[marbel]

Sure, for me, knowing is better than now knowing, so I like having facts without hyperbole.  Hard to tell which is which anymore. 

I'm just confused, I guess. Is this thread about government officials being overly optimistic, or facebook memes, or just people in everyday conversation?

I would like government officials and news reporters to be factual with both the negative and the positive.  I'd like facebook memes to go away, but in any case I just ignore them.

People in everyday conversation is a little harder. A coworker of mine would spend time ranting every day about it all - mistakes gov't officials had made, having to come into the office and be around people, all the bad things. Over and over, repetitively. So pointless. I didn't argue or try to counter with positivity but she was seriously annoying in her relentless harping on it. I was so happy when I got to work from home, because now I don't have to listen to it anymore.   (Oddly enough, she opted to stay with the skeleton crew in the office though she had the opportunity to work from home.)

I don't know any people who seem overly-focused on the positive. The people I know seem to have a good sense of the necessity of social distancing, etc. But I am also trying to talk about other things. I had a phone meetup with some friends to talk about a book. We quickly went over our current status of work, school, etc., then moved on. It was refreshing to talk about something else.

 

 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

It's personality thing.  You have your optimists, your pessimists, and your realists.  I'm a realist.  I want to hear unvarnished versions of both the good and bad.  The good doesn't negate the bad and the bad doesn't negate the good.  I'm analytical, not emotive by nature, so I want that pros and cons list. I want to articulate both sides of an issue when discussing, which drives a significant percentage of the population nuts because most people just want their view mimicked because, for some reason, they find it reassuring.  OK, well they shouldn't come to me then, I'll just disappoint them.  I cannot have a meaningful discussion without explicitly addressing all the good and the bad; ignoring one or the other is the opposite of meaningful.  I'm not emoting all over myself, so their soothing words of reassurance based on ignoring unpleasant realities have the opposite effect on me-it makes me think they're not someone who should be involved in discussions about matters of consequence because they're avoiding the full scope of reality.  Same with those who can only focus on negatives-people unwilling to look at the whole picture are people I'll avoid because they're willingly blind.

And I agree that so many people fail to switch when appropriate between general statements and individual circumstances. Statistically odds are most elderly will survive this, but my parents all have individual health issues that put them at highest risk to die from it, so I can shift as needed and encourage them to to take precautions. I suspect people who are more flippant about it likely don't have loved ones with higher risk factors, or are so far removed from caretaking in serious medical situations they're just advertising their ignorance. 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

Let's not forget that we live in a world with people who interpret any questions about challenges as discouragement. They're everywhere and they. are. exhausting. They'll go on about some big plans they have, then the realist asks questions about how they plan to handle known, predictable challenges, then the big plans persons gets into a huff about how mean, negative, and discouraging the realist is. ( ?!?!??!?!? ) Good heavens! The realist assumed the big plans person was a proactive person who had a plan to trouble shoot challenges and the realist wanted to learn from the big plans person about how they were going to succeed. Realists love talking solutions.  But no, big plans person is hurt.  So much for talking like peers.

[Wheres Toto]

1 hour ago, Quill said:

This is what I was thinking, except I’m not a mathy person and I have not gotten hard numbers like this. 

I have said to my dh, just consider what happens if all of us in this household get it at roughly the same time. Think about how that would be if the person in the best condition is ds15, with us two very sick or needing hospitalization. That is very ominous to me. 

There are discussions on a local board about what parents plan to do if all the adults in the house get sick and they have young children.   I think people (at least around here) are starting to realize the full ramifications of this outside of people dying.   Parents don't even have to be hospitalized to be unable to effectively care for young children. 

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, marbel said:

Sure, for me, knowing is better than now knowing, so I like having facts without hyperbole.  Hard to tell which is which anymore. 

I'm just confused, I guess. Is this thread about government officials being overly optimistic, or facebook memes, or just people in everyday conversation?

I would like government officials and news reporters to be factual with both the negative and the positive.  I'd like facebook memes to go away, but in any case I just ignore them.

People in everyday conversation is a little harder. A coworker of mine would spend time ranting every day about it all - mistakes gov't officials had made, having to come into the office and be around people, all the bad things. Over and over, repetitively. So pointless. I didn't argue or try to counter with positivity but she was seriously annoying in her relentless harping on it. I was so happy when I got to work from home, because now I don't have to listen to it anymore.   (Oddly enough, she opted to stay with the skeleton crew in the office though she had the opportunity to work from home.)

I don't know any people who seem overly-focused on the positive. The people I know seem to have a good sense of the necessity of social distancing, etc. But I am also trying to talk about other things. I had a phone meetup with some friends to talk about a book. We quickly went over our current status of work, school, etc., then moved on. It was refreshing to talk about something else.

 

 

 

The *particular* thing that lead me to post this is FB memes, but I am also bothered by your two other categories. Of them, I cannot say much about the political aspect, of course, and AFA people in conversations, well, I’m not having many conversations with a wide range of people, unless you count posts on FB or here. 

I think it like @Homeschool Mom in AZ says: I like to discuss realistic facts. And I for sure would prefer realistic facts coming from our leaders and not general whitewashing OR hysterical doomsaying. I love the tone Governor Hogan takes and it really strikes the right chord to me. It’s cautious without being severe, compassionate without being hysterical. Some others in leadership positions are not like that and it really annoys me. 

I love a message of hope. I have seen awesome stories on FB and have read great things that make me very proud of my community, say, or my state government, or the businesses that are helping. I’m looking for Mr. Rogers’ helpers and I love that message. What I don’t like is people who say something good and then follow it with “bet you won’t hear *that* on the news!” Or people in a position of authority blithely saying, “It will be fine...we’re doing great.” That is nonsense and it does not promote people being duly cautious. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I've also been happy with Cuomo. Yes, he's saying sobering stuff, but he's also frantically working on stuff that may make things better. That feels like real hope to me, instead of covering your ears and saying "la la la la la, this isn't happening!" That's not hope... that's just denial. 

I did see a funny meme on FB that said, “Gov. Cuomo and Gov. Hogan are competing for the title of Dad in a crisis”. 😄 Something like that. It was funny! 

[SKL]

You would rather deal with the facts, but it sounds like you are not interested in the positive facts.

Personally I have observed that there are people who are trying to be encouraging, partly to counter the "it's all over" vibe that others are putting out.

I think personally that it is responsible to encourage people, provided the information given is as factual as possible under the circumstances.

For example "the vast majority of people who get this have a mild case and don't even need to see the doctor."

Talking like this is likely to decrease panic-motivated actions that are likely to spread the disease, such as the large numbers of elderly people who rushed to the grocery store after a gloom-and-doom "scientific prediction" that ended up being very very far from true.

Being encouraging does not mean we don't deal with the negative facts also, as best we can.  But for those of us who can't do anything much about this anyway, we don't need to hear the negative all day long.

I mean do you have a policy of telling your kids every hour throughout their lives, "you do know your grandparents are going to die.  I don't know when, but it is certain they will end up with fatal cancer or heart disease if they don't die of an accident or suicide or infection before that.  Just keeping it real!  Oh and I'm gonna die too, could be today, tomorrow, or next week, I mean there is always the chance.  Glad you enjoy your XYZ but you do know it could get stolen or burned to the ground at any random time.  Just sticking with the facts!"

[SKL]

As for the particular meme people are bashing.  (XXX,XXX recovered, bet you won't see that on the news.)

The one person I saw posting that meme was my SIL.  She is high risk (recovering cancer patient among other things).  Her husband is continuing to work in a health-related job ("necessary"), and he's allergic to the med they are testing.  (Also he almost died of double pneumonia a few years ago.)  A couple days ago she asked people on fb to stop posting the other meme that said "imagine your kid is in the hospital and you can't be there for him."  She said she has a kid who is sick and afraid to go to the hospital because of all the doom messages.  Also that people with adult kids can do nothing but worry.  So seeing those kinds of memes only makes things worse.

She also posts those memes about please wash your hands, stay home, etc.  She's far from a denier.  She's worried.  She just doesn't want to be constantly reminded of the possibility that her whole world is gonna blow up and there's nothing she can do about it.

So you want to hate on her for remembering to see the hope that does exist in the situation.

Yeah I hate memes that end with "bet you won't see that" / "bet you won't share this" / "let that sink in" etc.  But give people a break.

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Well, 4/5th isn't actually a VAST majority. The vast majority don't die. Lots of people need hospitalization. 

Cuomo has been harping on this fact every day, by the way. Lots of people who are not in any way being Polyanna talk about the fact that this isn't a scary virus for a lot of people. I don't think this is what Quill is talking about. She's talking about an unbalanced perspective with respect to the positives and the negatives. 

But it is true that the news and other sources of info are imbalanced in favor of the negative (by far).  If that's your thing, then enjoy it, but it doesn't have to be everyone's thing.

Edited March 29, 2020 by SKL

[SKL]

Oh and before anyone says "well just stay off the internet," the internet is currently the only connection many people have to the community.

[SKL]

24 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

I really don't know. Is it? What I do on the Internet is watch Cuomo's presentations and hang out on this forum. The only thing I find negative and discouraging is people who refuse to do social distancing or report people failing to do so in their communities. I am not finding people to be unduly negative. Most people are posting news stories (both positives and negatives), updates, and anecdotes. What are you finding so negative about what people are sharing? 

Many of the individuals I see are trying to be balanced, but commercial sources of info not so much.  Also there are still comments like those above "we are doomed" "there is no hope" etc. - but mostly it is the unbalance "this many people are going to die because xyz did everything wrong" without also acknowledging hopeful developments and that people are doing many things right.  Also it would be nice if armchair politicians would rein in their natural impulse to attack certain people no matter what.  I mean that is the norm for many all year long, but maybe just be a little thoughtful about it at a time like this.  There will be plenty of time for bashing when this is over.  It is not objective or helpful, and when it's misleading selective reporting, imo you don't even get to call that factual.

Edited March 29, 2020 by SKL

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't mind hopeful information, but I rage hate information that is used to argue that this is all NBD.  Particularly if it includes reference to LARGE populations and implies that they are disposable.  Or if it is used to justify ignoring the shelter in place guidelines.

 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

For example "the vast majority of people who get this have a mild case and don't even need to see the doctor."

 

that's not a positive fact, SKL. That's the core of why we all have to stay home right now - because you'll probably have a mild case and spread it around thinking you're fine.

[SKL]

13 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

that's not a positive fact, SKL. That's the core of why we all have to stay home right now - because you'll probably have a mild case and spread it around thinking you're fine.

It's mixed and probably not the best example, but there are plenty of other positive "facts" that are being underplayed.  I think you get my drift.  I don't get the hate about people wanting to be hopeful and encouraging.

[AnotherE]

7 hours ago, Quill said:

It’s “negative” to talk about deaths, equipment shortages, leaders who have fumbled the ball on this and who urge us instead to talk about “all the recoveries”. That seems like so much Polyanna nonsense to me. And for any of us in an area still on the upwards side of the curve, recoveries are not very meaningful because the bulk of the cases are still in the active phase. 

Maybe I’m unusual but I would rather deal with the facts, however crappy they may be. I think minimizing the potential of CV19 was one of the biggest mistakes, right from the top, in the US. You can’t be prepared for battle if you just whistle a happy tune and say it’s gonna be fine. 

I think this is in the same vein of people who didn't want to acknowledge that the virus was even a serious thing. Until is shut down the entire country. In another thread a few (couple? Time flies) of weeks ago I talked about what life was like in the epicenter- schools closing, jobs going to work from home, and the thread was literally called something like "does anyone else not care about about the virus." (renamed to "not oveerly worried") and I couldn't understand how people could be so flippant.

Now I  wonder if those people who say to "be positive!" will feel the same way if someone they know or love gets sick. And ends up in an overwhelmed hospital. Without enough ventilators. Will they still be in the same "be happy" frame of mind. Why do some people have to be in the mire to finally figure out what other people are saying?

Btw, I  don't feel vindicated in regards to the previous thread, I just feel sad. It would have been nice to have come together before everything turned so terrible for everyone.

Edited March 29, 2020 by AnotherE

[Tanaqui]

54 minutes ago, SKL said:

It's mixed and probably not the best example, but there are plenty of other positive "facts" that are being underplayed.  I think you get my drift.  I don't get the hate about people wanting to be hopeful and encouraging.

 

It's not about people wanting to be hopeful and encouraging. It's about those people complaining that other people are sharing negative information, or actively trying to get people not to share negative information.

[SKL]

Be positive does not equal do nothing.

I have been seeing proactive behavior for weeks in this state which is still not anywhere near its normal capacity for hospital beds.  That was encouraging.  I know it's not all perfect, but it's also not like everyone was just sitting around waiting for the tsunami to hit.

I posted on another thread that my kids (in the grocery store) heard multiple people saying things like "we're all gonna die."  Do people really think that is better than what the OP is complaining about?  I mean I guess we can agree to disagree.

[SKL]

33 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

It's not about people wanting to be hopeful and encouraging. It's about those people complaining that other people are sharing negative information, or actively trying to get people not to share negative information.

Well I have not seen anyone telling others not to state true objective information.  Though I will say I don't see the point of posting all over the internet, all day long, about something we can all easily find out by looking at the same one or two web sources.

Also, I think there is a difference between posting the bare facts of the situation vs. posting our opinion about whose fault it is etc.  At this point, people who are doing this don't even have the ability to know who is doing what behind the scenes.  I see all kinds of comments in that "non-political thread" that are biased, unhelpful opinions, which some readers may be taking as fact, and yes, that is problematic IMO.  But sure, have your opinion and post it on facebook, but don't expect everyone to enjoy a heavy diet of that.

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

No, lol, that's bad, too. Why can't I ask for some sensible middle (being sober but hopeful), while disavowing both ridiculous extremes?? 

You can.  Who's stopping you?

[Pen]

7 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

 

If the entire population of the world got coronavirus, and 2% died, that's 160,000,000 people, just from the disease. Think about the Holocaust, and then just keep doubling that number until you're in the ballpark - and we don't know yet what the long-term effect of the disease is on survivors. (Another way to think of this is that 3x the normal worldwide mortality for the year, just due to the disease.)

Then, of course, many more people would die from lack of treatment for injuries or other disease because the hospitals would be overwhelmed with coronavirus patients. More needless deaths. We'd probably see an uptick in deaths due to suicide and substance abuse as well.

Of course, even the most wildly pessimistic projections do not, I think, assume that literally everybody will fall ill... but certainly a lot of people would if we don't take some pretty stringent measures to prevent this. Edit: And of course, the mortality rate of a disease depends in some part on the number of infections. Too many infections to treat = higher mortality rate.

 

It would also likely overwhelm funeral and sanitation services so I’d expect more possible health crises from rats or other pests attacking decomposing dead bodies;  problems with water supply and sewage etc.   (overwhelmed dead body disposals services seems in any case to be happening in Italy...   though use of an ice rink was clever!) 

Edited March 29, 2020 by Pen

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

Well, you're posting in a thread about being frustrated at people being unwilling to hear the negative side of things. That makes me feel like you believe that your example of people who are very doom and gloom contradicts that perspective.

Frankly, I think both perspectives are awful :-). I'm sympathetic to this thread. I also think it's ridiculous to have people say "The sky is falling!" 

I might be reading the OP's tone differently from how you are.  I suspect that what she's getting push back on is not that she ever mentions the sad parts of this situation, but how she does it (i.e. with opinion / blame commentary), as I've seen on here including in the OP itself. 

But also, like I said, I kinda don't see the point of bringing gloom and doom into every conversation.  I am on facebook often, and I'm fine with the wash your hands, stay home, flatten the curve, sew masks, etc, but why would I want to see the death toll there, when I can and do look it up all day long on my own?  How does that help? 

I do think most people go on facebook for a bit of relief from the stressors of life.  I know once in a while we feel a need to get serious on there, but this is a situation where the info is everywhere for the asking.  No fb PSA is needed.

Or am I the only person who considers my audience on facebook?

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I think people just react differently to these things. I like keeping track because it makes me feel more in control. And right now, it doesn't feel far away. 

I wasn't keeping track of any of it until 3 weeks ago, when it felt close... 

I've had at least one coronavirus tracker open on my computer continuously for several weeks.  I check it frequently.  I am not burying my head in the sand.  It doesn't mean I go on social media and post the numbers as they grow.

[Pen]

I think I would be good with a thread that were titled something along lines of Only Posive Messages Please...   that seems very different than when things indicate that CV19 is no big deal.  Wanting to be buoyed up by hearing more positive news and having a place to turn to for just that makes sense to me.

When otoh I read it’s No Big Deal type messages that gets me way more worried than seeing the actual statistics as to deaths etc

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Be positive does not equal do nothing.

I have been seeing proactive behavior for weeks in this state which is still not anywhere near its normal capacity for hospital beds.  That was encouraging.  I know it's not all perfect, but it's also not like everyone was just sitting around waiting for the tsunami to hit.

I posted on another thread that my kids (in the grocery store) heard multiple people saying things like "we're all gonna die."  Do people really think that is better than what the OP is complaining about?  I mean I guess we can agree to disagree.

Well, I have never heard people in the grocery store saying “we’re all gonna die.” The closest thing I have heard is people who believe, “we will all get this virus sooner or later.” I do not personally behave as though, “we’re all going to get it sooner or later.” I’m deliberately trying to reduce the likelihood for myself as much as I possibly can. 

You can “be positive” without being a glib whitewasher, too. I like positive news just fine! What I hate is whitewashed or misleading facts. The thing about “98% of people will have a mild case” is a misleading fact (even if it is accurate, which I am not certain of) because of the large number of people we’re talking about. 

Look, not only my state, not only my county, but the city next door to me and a community where I lived for years, just jumped by over a hundred cases in one day. My state’s numbers have quadrupled in three days. That may be “negative” news, but that’s the reality we have to face up to here. We are many weeks away from reaching the peak, according to some really smart people at the world class medical institutions here.

Good news is fine. Obscuring bad news in an effort to be falsly positive is not.

[SKL]

15 minutes ago, Quill said:

Well, I have never heard people in the grocery store saying “we’re all gonna die.” The closest thing I have heard is people who believe, “we will all get this virus sooner or later.” I do not personally behave as though, “we’re all going to get it sooner or later.” I’m deliberately trying to reduce the likelihood for myself as much as I possibly can. 

You can “be positive” without being a glib whitewasher, too. I like positive news just fine! What I hate is whitewashed or misleading facts. The thing about “98% of people will have a mild case” is a misleading fact (even if it is accurate, which I am not certain of) because of the large number of people we’re talking about. 

Look, not only my state, not only my county, but the city next door to me and a community where I lived for years, just jumped by over a hundred cases in one day. My state’s numbers have quadrupled in three days. That may be “negative” news, but that’s the reality we have to face up to here. We are many weeks away from reaching the peak, according to some really smart people at the world class medical institutions here.

Good news is fine. Obscuring bad news in an effort to be falsly positive is not.

Well since I don't know the exact quote that prompted you to post this thread, I guess I can't really tell if I agree or disagree with you.

But assuming for argument's sake (as you did) that the 98% is true, how can it be "misleading" to quantify the same exact fact in a positive tone vs. a negative tone?  Are you assuming people old enough to be on social media are too stupid to understand what 2% / 98% means?

[SKL]

Well the fact is that we have to weigh the risk of "cavalier" outlook vs. the risk of excessive panic, depression, and hopelessness, each of which can take their own toll on the health care system.

If some people weren't pushing the panic / hopelessness reaction, then maybe others wouldn't feel a need to counter it with encouraging comments.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well since I don't know the exact quote that prompted you to post this thread, I guess I can't really tell if I agree or disagree with you.

But assuming for argument's sake (as you did) that the 98% is true, how can it be "misleading" to quantify the same exact fact in a positive tone vs. a negative tone?  Are you assuming people old enough to be on social media are too stupid to understand what 2% / 98% means?

One of the memes that prompted this post says this:

”98% of people who contract COVID-19 recover! Bet you won’t hear *that* on the news!” There is also anther variation that says, “Bet you won’t post *that* on your wall!” 

Then, there are others that say, “Let’s be positive! Did you know 970 people recovered from Coronavirus in Italy yesterday? Nobody shares the positive news!” 

There are also several versions of all of these things, but the (annoying) thing they all have in common is saying “be positive!” and claiming that nobody is telling this positive news or posting about this positive news. As if posting about *factual* information is “being negative.” 

The trackers I follow DO also list recoveries, so it’s not as though the evil news media is hiding the fact that people most often do recover. But with this disease, it gets worse before it gets better! And it’s nuts to try and ignore that by claiming it’s “being negative”. When any area of the world is on the upward trajectory of the curve, the number of recoveries are tiny next to the number of cases, simply because most of the cases are still in the active phase and few people have gotten through it (or died) yet. So, to me it’s silly to chasten people about posting “negative” news when recovery is not yet much of the picture in that area. 

[Corraleno]

There is absolutely no basis for saying that 98% have mild symptoms — that implies that the only two possible outcomes are "mild cold" or "dead." Originally the media was touting that 80% had "mild symptoms" but that was extrapolated from the fact that around 20% of diagnosed cases had to be hospitalized. There have been lots of reports of people who survived without hospitalization who still say it was one of the most miserable illnesses they ever experienced, with extreme fatigue, a terrible cough that caused severe chest pain, and a constant feeling of panic at not being able to breathe well. And there are also plenty of stories about people who went from "mild symptoms" to dead in a matter of days.

I think telling people that 98% will only have mild symptoms, combined with claims that it really only affects the elderly, is exactly how we end up with crowded beaches, people holding weddings and parties, etc. Somehow the message they have taken from all that "good news" is that a bunch of 80 year olds "who were gonna die anyway" may die from CV19, but they're not going to totally disrupt their own lives when the worst that can happen to them is a mild sniffle. If anything, I wish there was way more media attention being paid to the teens and young adults who are dying from this, especially since the trajectory from mild symptoms to death seems to happen extremely quickly in that demographic. Maybe if they better understood that this could in fact kill them, not just that little old lady down the street, they might be more inclined to stay the hell home.

[Happy2BaMom]

Yes, I understand that people (including me) need sometimes a break from the fear. We will get through this (probably more than once). It's good to remember that.

OTOH, I can't help but be struck by the privilege that is so enshrined in these "betcha won't post this" memes. For people without health insurance, a "survivable" form of this virus could be an instant entryway into lifelong bankruptcy and/or poverty. There are an estimated 30 million people in this country without health insurance. A bunch more are in the process of losing their insurance due to being laid off. Having no insurance while a rabidly contagious virus in which 20% of the ill require hospitalization makes it's way through the country? Terrifying. Regardless of the "positive" outcomes.

Or consider what the effect Covid is likely to have on the developing world... for instance, I have a friend who runs a non-profit in Ethiopia. She just sent out a newsletter, discussing the fear and distress occurring there. The entire country (according to her) has FOUR ventilators. I literally can't imagine what it would be like to live there now. What will the death rate be for poverty-stricken, overcrowded countries with extremely limited health care facilities & equipment?

 

Edited March 29, 2020 by Happy2BaMom

[Carol in Cal.]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

It's mixed and probably not the best example, but there are plenty of other positive "facts" that are being underplayed.  I think you get my drift.  I don't get the hate about people wanting to be hopeful and encouraging.

Because, specifically, it is being used to justify being out and about and possibly carrying the virus around.  That is why.  It's actively endangering people when it is said without caveats.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Quill said:

One of the memes that prompted this post says this:

”98% of people who contract COVID-19 recover! Bet you won’t hear *that* on the news!” There is also anther variation that says, “Bet you won’t post *that* on your wall!” 

Then, there are others that say, “Let’s be positive! Did you know 970 people recovered from Coronavirus in Italy yesterday? Nobody shares the positive news!” 

There are also several versions of all of these things, but the (annoying) thing they all have in common is saying “be positive!” and claiming that nobody is telling this positive news or posting about this positive news. As if posting about *factual* information is “being negative.” 

The trackers I follow DO also list recoveries, so it’s not as though the evil news media is hiding the fact that people most often do recover. But with this disease, it gets worse before it gets better! And it’s nuts to try and ignore that by claiming it’s “being negative”. When any area of the world is on the upward trajectory of the curve, the number of recoveries are tiny next to the number of cases, simply because most of the cases are still in the active phase and few people have gotten through it (or died) yet. So, to me it’s silly to chasten people about posting “negative” news when recovery is not yet much of the picture in that area. 

So you see a danger in posting positive actual facts but no parallel concern in posting exclusively negative actual facts.

As for your comment connecting "being negative" to "factual" information, I'm not sure if you are saying positive info is not "factual," or if you are implying that positive posters are too stupid to know that some of the actual facts are bad.

I don't see why those messages should annoy you, unless you believe the whole world is reading into them the additional words "so the dead people don't matter."  Which is IMO a completely illogical reading of those comments.

Basically I am reading your posts to mean that hope is stupid.  So I guess I don't agree with you.  Hope is necessary.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

There is absolutely no basis for saying that 98% have mild symptoms — that implies that the only two possible outcomes are "mild cold" or "dead." Originally the media was touting that 80% had "mild symptoms" but that was extrapolated from the fact that around 20% of diagnosed cases had to be hospitalized. There have been lots of reports of people who survived without hospitalization who still say it was one of the most miserable illnesses they ever experienced, with extreme fatigue, a terrible cough that caused severe chest pain, and a constant feeling of panic at not being able to breathe well. And there are also plenty of stories about people who went from "mild symptoms" to dead in a matter of days.

I think telling people that 98% will only have mild symptoms, combined with claims that it really only affects the elderly, is exactly how we end up with crowded beaches, people holding weddings and parties, etc. Somehow the message they have taken from all that "good news" is that a bunch of 80 year olds "who were gonna die anyway" may die from CV19, but they're not going to totally disrupt their own lives when the worst that can happen to them is a mild sniffle. If anything, I wish there was way more media attention being paid to the teens and young adults who are dying from this, especially since the trajectory from mild symptoms to death seems to happen extremely quickly in that demographic. Maybe if they better understood that this could in fact kill them, not just that little old lady down the street, they might be more inclined to stay the hell home.

I don't think anyone actually said 98% have mild symptoms.  (We actually don't know what % have mild symptoms, because we don't know how many people are "asymptomatic.")  But that's not the point.  I also don't think this is about staying home.  People I see trying to be positive ARE staying home.

Edited March 30, 2020 by SKL

[SKL]

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

That's nice, because the people I see being positive around here are walking around and flouting social distancing. Mostly, the positive people say things like "Eh, it's just a bad cold!" and then decide they've had it already and do whatever. 

I think there's a difference between the kind of positive things people can say. 

So like I said, being positive doesn't equal being in denial.  They are completely separate things.

[SKL]

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, and I won't stop talking hopefully, and if you all choose to add subscripts that I did not actually say, that is on you.