SWMCinci
Well-known member
Apparently most people that have gotten this were asymptomatic (according to the antibody testing) and never knew they were sick, allegedly that's the problem.
Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic spreads from China to US
- Thread starter OhioBobcatFan06
- Start date
Apparently most people that have gotten this were asymptomatic (according to the antibody testing) and never knew they were sick, allegedly that's the problem.
SWMCinci
Well-known member
They test nearly every day. Are you going to test every American every day for the rest of their lives? This is why it's impractical and of limited to no value.
I like some of his ideas here. The problem is that the folks running pubic health departments across the country have no imagination and are so focused on their little slice of expertise they are the worst people to have leading the effort against covid19.
pagetwo.completecolorado.com
Yet our reaction isn’t to protect the elderly and those with underlying conditions. No, instead we decide to force over 214 million people under 65 with no underlying condition who are under virtually no threat from coronavirus to restrict their activities, socially distance from each other, and go into lockdown.
Instead of targeting the vulnerable population for assistance and infection avoidance, we shut down our economy. Many of the vulnerable are elderly and out of the workforce, yet we target the workforce and push 33 million people out of their jobs. We destroy countless small businesses, risk food shortages due to the supply disruption, drive oil prices so low that it could devastate thousands of Coloradans and cause political instability and international conflicts to rise, scare people who need medical attention away from emergency room visits, and cause domestic violence to rise.
I suspect that in the end most will agree that something along these lines is what we should have done:
The program would look like this: if you are not elderly or vulnerable, you would not practice social distancing among the non-vulnerable. If you get the disease, you get over it and move on.
If you are vulnerable, for at least the next several weeks as we push toward herd immunity, when in public wear a mask, self-quarantine as much as possible, and practice social distancing. A mask would be the sign to everybody that you wish to avoid the disease. The non-vulnerable population would respect your wishes and practice social distancing in your presence. At work, non-vulnerable employees could wear masks when they know they will be close to vulnerable co-workers. In parks and other public situations, the unmasked could be asked to respect those with masks and maintain their distance. Subways or buses could have special cars or sections where people with masks could maintain safe distances.
Dierenbach: Is it time for a new approach to coronavirus?
Most all of us are going to get coronavirus eventually, so why destroy our economy to delay the inevitable when the delay itself means higher risk for the vulnerable people?
pagetwo.completecolorado.com
Yet our reaction isn’t to protect the elderly and those with underlying conditions. No, instead we decide to force over 214 million people under 65 with no underlying condition who are under virtually no threat from coronavirus to restrict their activities, socially distance from each other, and go into lockdown.
Instead of targeting the vulnerable population for assistance and infection avoidance, we shut down our economy. Many of the vulnerable are elderly and out of the workforce, yet we target the workforce and push 33 million people out of their jobs. We destroy countless small businesses, risk food shortages due to the supply disruption, drive oil prices so low that it could devastate thousands of Coloradans and cause political instability and international conflicts to rise, scare people who need medical attention away from emergency room visits, and cause domestic violence to rise.
I suspect that in the end most will agree that something along these lines is what we should have done:
The program would look like this: if you are not elderly or vulnerable, you would not practice social distancing among the non-vulnerable. If you get the disease, you get over it and move on.
If you are vulnerable, for at least the next several weeks as we push toward herd immunity, when in public wear a mask, self-quarantine as much as possible, and practice social distancing. A mask would be the sign to everybody that you wish to avoid the disease. The non-vulnerable population would respect your wishes and practice social distancing in your presence. At work, non-vulnerable employees could wear masks when they know they will be close to vulnerable co-workers. In parks and other public situations, the unmasked could be asked to respect those with masks and maintain their distance. Subways or buses could have special cars or sections where people with masks could maintain safe distances.
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
I'm not sure why this guy hates the elderly so much.I like some of his ideas here. The problem is that the folks running pubic health departments across the country have no imagination and are so focused on their little slice of expertise they are the worst people to have leading the effort against covid19.
Dierenbach: Is it time for a new approach to coronavirus?
Most all of us are going to get coronavirus eventually, so why destroy our economy to delay the inevitable when the delay itself means higher risk for the vulnerable people?
Yet our reaction isn’t to protect the elderly and those with underlying conditions. No, instead we decide to force over 214 million people under 65 with no underlying condition who are under virtually no threat from coronavirus to restrict their activities, socially distance from each other, and go into lockdown.
Instead of targeting the vulnerable population for assistance and infection avoidance, we shut down our economy. Many of the vulnerable are elderly and out of the workforce, yet we target the workforce and push 33 million people out of their jobs. We destroy countless small businesses, risk food shortages due to the supply disruption, drive oil prices so low that it could devastate thousands of Coloradans and cause political instability and international conflicts to rise, scare people who need medical attention away from emergency room visits, and cause domestic violence to rise.
I suspect that in the end most will agree that something along these lines is what we should have done:
The program would look like this: if you are not elderly or vulnerable, you would not practice social distancing among the non-vulnerable. If you get the disease, you get over it and move on.
If you are vulnerable, for at least the next several weeks as we push toward herd immunity, when in public wear a mask, self-quarantine as much as possible, and practice social distancing. A mask would be the sign to everybody that you wish to avoid the disease. The non-vulnerable population would respect your wishes and practice social distancing in your presence. At work, non-vulnerable employees could wear masks when they know they will be close to vulnerable co-workers. In parks and other public situations, the unmasked could be asked to respect those with masks and maintain their distance. Subways or buses could have special cars or sections where people with masks could maintain safe distances.
And on the same theme:
And while I would argue this was not the greatest mistake in history, because there have been some big ones, this has been the biggest mistake in the 21st century (so far).
But for those open to reading thoughts they may differ with, here is the case for why the worldwide lockdown is not only a mistake but also, possibly, the worst mistake the world has ever made. And for those intellectually challenged by the English language and/or logic, “mistake” and “evil” are not synonyms. The lockdown is a mistake; the Holocaust, slavery, communism, fascism, etc., were evils. Massive mistakes are made by arrogant fools; massive evils are committed by evil people.
The forcible prevention of Americans from doing anything except what politicians deem “essential” has led to the worst economy in American history since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is panic and hysteria, not the coronavirus, that created this catastrophe. And the consequences in much of the world will be more horrible than in America.
Another sobering thought:
The United Nations World Food Programme, or the WFP, states that by the end of the year, more than 260 million people will face starvation — double last year’s figures. According to WFP director David Beasley on April 21: “We could be looking at famine in about three dozen countries. … There is also a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself”.
And while I would argue this was not the greatest mistake in history, because there have been some big ones, this has been the biggest mistake in the 21st century (so far).
But for those open to reading thoughts they may differ with, here is the case for why the worldwide lockdown is not only a mistake but also, possibly, the worst mistake the world has ever made. And for those intellectually challenged by the English language and/or logic, “mistake” and “evil” are not synonyms. The lockdown is a mistake; the Holocaust, slavery, communism, fascism, etc., were evils. Massive mistakes are made by arrogant fools; massive evils are committed by evil people.
The forcible prevention of Americans from doing anything except what politicians deem “essential” has led to the worst economy in American history since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is panic and hysteria, not the coronavirus, that created this catastrophe. And the consequences in much of the world will be more horrible than in America.
Another sobering thought:
The United Nations World Food Programme, or the WFP, states that by the end of the year, more than 260 million people will face starvation — double last year’s figures. According to WFP director David Beasley on April 21: “We could be looking at famine in about three dozen countries. … There is also a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself”.
I'm not sure why this guy hates the elderly so much.
Actually doing things his way shows the real love of Senior citizens that he has.
Here are 10 great reasons to end the shut down ASAP:
www.spectator.co.uk
And here's #7:
7. Lockdown directly harms those who will be largely unaffected by coronavirus
The vast majority of people under 65, and almost everyone under 50, will be no more inconvenienced by this disease than by a cold. They are being asked to make huge sacrifices for something that will not affect them. Education, jobs, businesses: these are not abstract concepts, they are people’s lives. This group includes the people who are the most productive part of our society and whose efforts support everyone else, including those who are ill. Why is removing them from activity a sensible thing to do? The argument that they might unknowingly pass the virus on to others and so are best kept at home – the 'stay home, save lives' message given to us by government – is spurious (see also 9 below). There is no evidence that self-isolation of those at special risk is a worse option. Lost education, lost job opportunities, and destroyed livelihoods cannot necessarily be made good.
The other 9 reasons are just as good.
Ten reasons to end the lockdown now
Writing in this magazine a month ago, I applauded the government’s stated aim of trying to follow the science in dealing with Covid. Such promises are easier made than kept. Following science means understanding science. It means engaging with rival interpretations of the limited data in order...
www.spectator.co.uk
And here's #7:
7. Lockdown directly harms those who will be largely unaffected by coronavirus
The vast majority of people under 65, and almost everyone under 50, will be no more inconvenienced by this disease than by a cold. They are being asked to make huge sacrifices for something that will not affect them. Education, jobs, businesses: these are not abstract concepts, they are people’s lives. This group includes the people who are the most productive part of our society and whose efforts support everyone else, including those who are ill. Why is removing them from activity a sensible thing to do? The argument that they might unknowingly pass the virus on to others and so are best kept at home – the 'stay home, save lives' message given to us by government – is spurious (see also 9 below). There is no evidence that self-isolation of those at special risk is a worse option. Lost education, lost job opportunities, and destroyed livelihoods cannot necessarily be made good.
The other 9 reasons are just as good.
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
It will be interesting to see what the Dems dream up to combat this, in order to help out their Chicom friends.And as long as Trump is POTUS they might be held accountable.
Trump Administration ‘Turbocharging’ Withdrawal of Supply Chains from China | National Review
Measures involving the Commerce Department, State, and other federal agencies are being explored to find ways to decouple from China.www.nationalreview.com
Harrycrane - Lotty did not call you illiterate. What he did was ask you a question and the question was " Are you illiterate Harry?" You really need to quit reading more into things than are there. By the way what your answer to the question. Maybe we should take a poll that might help you get a more honest answer.
eastside_purple
Well-known member
Everyday would be ideal, but not practical. But yeah, periodically in set intervals testing is needed....at a minimum the symptomatic must be tested when presented. That isn’t even close to the case presently.
And the number keeps rising. In the end half of all the covid19 deaths in the US will come from those in assisted living. What a disaster the quarantine everyone to protect those at risk strategy versus simply protecting those at risk has been.
www.businessinsider.com
Nursing home residents and workers make up a third of coronavirus deaths. In some states, they account for half.
A New York Times database suggests about one-third of US coronavirus deaths are related to nursing homes. Only 10% of cases occur in the facilities.
www.businessinsider.com
JUSTGOPLAY
Well-known member
What's that???? Military Coup?
eastisbest
Well-known member
We all get that you are math challenged. So a scenario that makes perfect sense but you will pretend goes totally over your head so as to keep your delusional narrative intact in your head.
Preventing or putting out a small fire can prevent an unstoppable fire. Little drops. It's chaos theory. It's also, common sense. You and the "oh yeah" boys that click the agree on your post wouldn't understand either
SWCinci on the otherhand, should know better than to post that statement. As a condition for reopening? On that I would agree with SWCinci enough to at least say, testing is not a solution. Not unless it becomes like brushing teeth in the morning, testing could not tell us whether or not we have a lick on this thing. Unexposed today is exposed tomorrow, particularly as we put our feet back into the water.
The major factor there is medical capacity only. There has been plenty of time for any cultural adjustments to take place, for the majority who do not have their heads up their azzes to be part of the solution, and as long as we're watchful, to progress to some normalcy and spend, spend, spend those checks. Only the cowards and sheep are afraid America is not capable of recoverying economically down even to the small business level and using this as a learning for any future similar occurances.
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
An overwhelmed medical system is but a small issue when compared to the devastating damage that has been done to our economy. The whole "medical system failure" boogie man is completely silly. We actually have seen what happens, and it must be acceptable. The boggie man is as follows, if the system were over run by COVID patients, other people wouldn't be able to be served. Hmmmm, guess what, that is exactly what happened, minus the part where the hospitals were overrun with COVID patients. Your side needs to accept the fact that this isn't anywhere near as deadly as first thought. Odd that people seem to want to cling to this unsupportable dooms day scenario.
Last edited:
eastside_purple
Well-known member
Lol
y2h
Well-known member
There never was a fire.
Then again I'm sure you believe 2 million Americans were in danger of dying so..
Guillotine
Well-known member
Math challenged? Are there a pile of dead people I don't know about?
Never have so many sacrificed so much for so few. The math is clear.
It's cute you feel you've been "protected" from the flu.
Guillotine
Well-known member
Some people are just high maintenance.
Raider6309
Well-known member
This was a lame virus
Guillotine
Well-known member
Worst pandemic ever...or, was it the best?
Raider6309
Well-known member
Most overblown
Keeping our medical infrastructure from being overwhelmed was a necessary effort. But is it possible that we did it to well? The reality is that we didn't come close, even in NYC, to wrecking the system.
When the powers that be argued that we had to protect our heath care capacity we agreed. But the goal was to keep the medical infrastructure from collapsing NOT keeping it from ever getting busy. By all accounts in most places of the US you could have tripled the covid19 hospitalizations and still maintained a functioning health care system.
The severity with which we shut down to preserve medical capacity was like putting an obese person on a strict diet to save their life and then carrying it out until they starved to death.
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
After tweeting all kinds of stupid $chit all weekend the POTUS again makes an of himself at today's press conference.
Here's an article that argues that herd immunity could be achieved with less then 1/4 of people in a community getting infected:
judithcurry.com
Incorporating, in a reasonable manner, inhomogeneity in susceptibility and infectivity in a standard SEIR epidemiological model, rather than assuming a homogeneous population, causes a very major reduction in the herd immunity threshold, and also in the ultimate infection level if the epidemic thereafter follows an unconstrained path. Therefore, the number of fatalities involved in achieving herd immunity is much lower than it would otherwise be.
In my view, the true herd immunity threshold probably lies somewhere between the 7% and 24%
If the reports that the covid virus got to California as early as late November are true then this might explain that state holding up so well. CA may already be nearing herd immunity.
Why herd immunity to COVID-19 is reached much earlier than thought
By Nic Lewis Introduction A study published in March by the COVID-19 Response Team from Imperial College (Ferguson20[1]) appears to have been largely responsible for driving government actions in t…
judithcurry.com
Incorporating, in a reasonable manner, inhomogeneity in susceptibility and infectivity in a standard SEIR epidemiological model, rather than assuming a homogeneous population, causes a very major reduction in the herd immunity threshold, and also in the ultimate infection level if the epidemic thereafter follows an unconstrained path. Therefore, the number of fatalities involved in achieving herd immunity is much lower than it would otherwise be.
In my view, the true herd immunity threshold probably lies somewhere between the 7% and 24%
If the reports that the covid virus got to California as early as late November are true then this might explain that state holding up so well. CA may already be nearing herd immunity.
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
Trump's Ridiculous Behavior at Pandemic Briefings Baffles a Watching World
While Donald Trump has made every White House coronavirus briefing about himself, many of the world's other leaders let medical experts brief the public.
theintercept.com
Opinion | The World Is Taking Pity on Us (Published 2020)
Will American prestige ever recover?
Stop watching.