4 ms·

I'm guessing you live in Hyderabad. Clearly your street is not a hotspot, and you really shouldn't be extrapolating from it to the rest of India. As far as peop

I'm guessing you live in Hyderabad. Clearly your street is not a hotspot, and you really shouldn't be extrapolating from it to the rest of India. As far as people having it while being asymptomatic, that is unfalsifiable until they are tested.

ramraj07 6y ago
Don't think I mentioned anything to generalize. Just what I observed in my city (Chennai) in my street. What I was implying is that perhaps things did go okay in terms of slowing the spread in India: of course, there's probably more spread than is being reported, but that seems par for course everywhere. I'm only worried that the lockdown is going to significantly affect the poorer communities worse at the expense of richer folks.
- kranner 6y ago
  Apologies, I read that as extrapolation. Also assumed Hyderabad as that is the fifth biggest city in size, and cases are around the same in number.
  - barkingcat 6y ago
    uh ... India has so many cities, how can you assume any city unless the person says?
    - kranner 6y ago
      GP did say that they lived in 1) the fifth biggest city in India, and 2) the case count was currently 570 in their city. The fifth biggest city in India population-wise is Ahmedabad but its case count is 2378. The fifth biggest city in India area-wise is Hyderabad whose case count is 542. Therefore I assumed OP meant Hyderabad. Both counts are from https://www.covid19india.org/ https://www.covid19india.org/
- ignoramous 6y ago
  > I'm only worried that the lockdown is going to significantly affect the poorer communities worse at the expense of richer folks. Sorry, what? The lockdown isn't about the rich or the poor. It is mostly about containing a deadly disease we don't fully understand yet. It is for the medics but also mostly to keep the social fabric intact. No one wants this to descent into chaos and madness without controls in-place. A deliberated and measured response is warranted despite an unprecedented loss of livelihood and absence of any real infrastructure to handle the fallout, especially to support the 500m people who live on daily-wages. Unless an effective prophylactic or a therapeutic treatment is discovered, lifting the lockdown can be disastrous for a country as dense as India and for incubation periods as long as they are for a rabidly contagious SARS-CoV-2. Hopefully, the current situation improves in a month (most cities and states could possibly reopen in the coming weeks), but I wish the conversation around UBI (food subsidies including) and universal healthcare picks up steam rather than the pathetic pettiness around religious faultlines that seems to be in focus, all the time, aided by the ruling party's inclination to make a mockery out of democracy and India's minorities. I digress.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    >> I'm only worried that the lockdown is going to significantly affect the poorer communities worse at the expense of richer folks. > Sorry, what? The lockdown isn't about rich or poor. I think you misunderstood the parent comment. They are worried that the poor will be more negatively effected by the lockdown than by the coronavirus, in contrast to the rich. This has been observed in other countries, where the poor have had no way to sustain themselves without work, whereas the rich can just hide inside and wait it out without a problem.
    - ignoramous 6y ago
      > I think you misunderstood the parent comment... the poor will be more negatively effected by the lockdown than by the coronavirus, in contrast to the rich. GP said and I quote, "at the expense of the rich", which, to me, implies that somehow the rich are conspiring to persist with the lockdown. The families reliant on dialy-wages have always had massive problems in terms of education, healthcare, food, and shelter, and it isn't something the pandemic has birthed though it has aggravated it. There exists central and state government schemes to address these issues, but I wish there was a more systemic, consorted, and uniform approach to it with UBI and universal healthcare, instead.
- dharmach 6y ago
  >>the lockdown is going to significantly affect the poorer communities worse at the expense of richer folks. In such situations that is always the case. If there is a lockdown, poor will suffer financially. If no lockdown, poor will be exposed to the infection more than others since they have to be out working.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  It’s not your fault. This kind of positive outcome just isn’t acceptable to a lot of people so they’re going to at best claim you’re the exception and at worst that you’re fudging the numbers. Today’s fashion is drama and any not hysteric action must end in doom and gloom.
panini_tech 6y ago
oh look whos talking. you seem to second guessing lots of things in the first place. this article is a bunch of baloney to undermine India's amazing progress to contain the chinese virus.
rezeroed 6y ago
He didn't extrapolate - the article is about the country, his comment is about his street, "on the ground".

ramraj07 6y ago

Don't think I mentioned anything to generalize. Just what I observed in my city (Chennai) in my street. What I was implying is that perhaps things did go okay in terms of slowing the spread in India: of course, there's probably more spread than is being reported, but that seems par for course everywhere. I'm only worried that the lockdown is going to significantly affect the poorer communities worse at the expense of richer folks.

kranner 6y ago
Apologies, I read that as extrapolation. Also assumed Hyderabad as that is the fifth biggest city in size, and cases are around the same in number.
- barkingcat 6y ago
  uh ... India has so many cities, how can you assume any city unless the person says?
  - kranner 6y ago
    GP did say that they lived in 1) the fifth biggest city in India, and 2) the case count was currently 570 in their city. The fifth biggest city in India population-wise is Ahmedabad but its case count is 2378. The fifth biggest city in India area-wise is Hyderabad whose case count is 542. Therefore I assumed OP meant Hyderabad. Both counts are from https://www.covid19india.org/ https://www.covid19india.org/
ignoramous 6y ago
> I'm only worried that the lockdown is going to significantly affect the poorer communities worse at the expense of richer folks. Sorry, what? The lockdown isn't about the rich or the poor. It is mostly about containing a deadly disease we don't fully understand yet. It is for the medics but also mostly to keep the social fabric intact. No one wants this to descent into chaos and madness without controls in-place. A deliberated and measured response is warranted despite an unprecedented loss of livelihood and absence of any real infrastructure to handle the fallout, especially to support the 500m people who live on daily-wages. Unless an effective prophylactic or a therapeutic treatment is discovered, lifting the lockdown can be disastrous for a country as dense as India and for incubation periods as long as they are for a rabidly contagious SARS-CoV-2. Hopefully, the current situation improves in a month (most cities and states could possibly reopen in the coming weeks), but I wish the conversation around UBI (food subsidies including) and universal healthcare picks up steam rather than the pathetic pettiness around religious faultlines that seems to be in focus, all the time, aided by the ruling party's inclination to make a mockery out of democracy and India's minorities. I digress.
- craftinator 6y ago
  >> I'm only worried that the lockdown is going to significantly affect the poorer communities worse at the expense of richer folks. > Sorry, what? The lockdown isn't about rich or poor. I think you misunderstood the parent comment. They are worried that the poor will be more negatively effected by the lockdown than by the coronavirus, in contrast to the rich. This has been observed in other countries, where the poor have had no way to sustain themselves without work, whereas the rich can just hide inside and wait it out without a problem.
  - ignoramous 6y ago
    > I think you misunderstood the parent comment... the poor will be more negatively effected by the lockdown than by the coronavirus, in contrast to the rich. GP said and I quote, "at the expense of the rich", which, to me, implies that somehow the rich are conspiring to persist with the lockdown. The families reliant on dialy-wages have always had massive problems in terms of education, healthcare, food, and shelter, and it isn't something the pandemic has birthed though it has aggravated it. There exists central and state government schemes to address these issues, but I wish there was a more systemic, consorted, and uniform approach to it with UBI and universal healthcare, instead.
dharmach 6y ago
>>the lockdown is going to significantly affect the poorer communities worse at the expense of richer folks. In such situations that is always the case. If there is a lockdown, poor will suffer financially. If no lockdown, poor will be exposed to the infection more than others since they have to be out working.
tinus_hn 6y ago
It’s not your fault. This kind of positive outcome just isn’t acceptable to a lot of people so they’re going to at best claim you’re the exception and at worst that you’re fudging the numbers. Today’s fashion is drama and any not hysteric action must end in doom and gloom.

panini_tech 6y ago

oh look whos talking. you seem to second guessing lots of things in the first place. this article is a bunch of baloney to undermine India's amazing progress to contain the chinese virus.

rezeroed 6y ago

He didn't extrapolate - the article is about the country, his comment is about his street, "on the ground".