|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On August 04 2020 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:
Wasn't the "real" letality around 0.2% ?
With 20/20 hindsight, makes me wonder if there should have been be a program to get young people infected/isolated and flushed back into society.
I let this slide last time, but your "just let young people get infected" bullshit needs to stop.
I work in a hospital. I have multiple colleagues who were infected with COVID-19 in the past year, all of them young people with no significant comorbidities. All of them had relatively mild infections that mostly fell in the range of headaches/fatigue and moderate diarrhea. Many of them still have reduced kidney function and/or severe chronic pain/fatigue 3-4 months later that did they did not even take note of during their primary COVID infection, and for all we know these may be lifelong conditions.
The idea that young people who do not suffer severe infections that lead to death or near-death ICU stays are completely fine to just expose themselves to the disease is a falsehood that predates us knowing about the long term sequelae of COVID-19 disease. These post-COVID morbidities have been known and well-documented for some time now. Continuing to spread that falsehood is just pure ignorance.
|
Former Floridian here. Florida is a fairly decent sized state and there is a lot of rural places and swampland. A lot of these counties showing 0 ICU beds available don't even have hospitals with ICUs hence why there are 0 beds available.
|
|
|
On August 04 2020 05:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 05:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 04 2020 03:05 Gorsameth wrote:On August 04 2020 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 03 2020 23:55 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 03 2020 23:10 LegalLord wrote:
The plateau in reported infection numbers (not just over the weekend but with week-on-week data) seems very much out of sync with the rest of the data and the increasingly alarmed messaging coming from the CDC and from other health officials, even within Trump's inner circle. There's a lot more human firewood yet to be burned through in the US before herd immunity.
The frightening thing about the numbers so far is that as bad as it's been, this is probably with less than 10% of the entire population getting the virus. There's a lot of room for things to get a lot worse, and we're all just being told to pretend like everything is normal, go back to school in the fall, so on and so forth. I'm glad I get to work 95% remote under the current conditions, but I know too many people are operating under a "you don't come to work, you don't eat" ultimatum. We're in desperate need of coordinated action, and not just of the "more stimulus" variety. If the virus' lethality rate is about 1% and there's 350 million people living in the United States. We need around 70% of people to be infected with the virus to achieve actual herd immunity. That's 2 million dead. And that's being conservative. I just want people to keep that in mind whenever the phrase "herd immunity" comes up. Anyone advocating that THAT will be the solution needs to understand what that means. Wasn't the "real" letality around 0.2% ? With 20/20 hindsight, makes me wonder if there should have been be a program to get young people infected/isolated and flushed back into society. is half a million an acceptable number? when does it become ok to just let it run its course? Acknowledging reality is acceptable. Sanctimonius posturing on lockdown isn't. The AVERAGE death rate for this disease is 80 years old. Perpetual lockdowns, keeping kids out of schools for over a year and infinite money printing will result in more death and misery than the disease itself. Reality must be considered. Always fun to try and argue with a strawman. No one is talking pertetual lockdowns, no one is talking about keeping schools closed for a year, no one is talking about infinite money printing (tho isn't the US already doing that even without a crisis?). If the US had done a proper lockdown and enforced it in the first place, the lockdown would be over by now and schools would be open, but they didn't. If the US went into a proper lockdown now and enforced it it would be able to open up in a few months (Schools in the Netherlands were closed for ~4 months). The rest of the world has already done this and managed to open back up, tho there are some concerns about a 2nd wave. The notion of some in the US to keep insisting that its impossible to do after everyone has already done it is just another amazing example of 'American exceptionalism'.
There are multiple references in here to "proper lockdown" which I don't think people understand is a political impossibility. It would involve mass incarceration, and that incarceration would likely fall along similar statistical lines of our already unpopular incarceration stats.
|
For better or worse, it was always going to be 50 separate lockdowns. The US is not a centralized republic with some Merkel issuing dicta and a bunch of Germans moving in lockstep with her.
The pandemic response was over once Governors started marching in mass protests. Compliance with Health Officials ended somewhere between telling the public that masks don't work before asking they be mandatory and saying dense, protesting crowds were not dangerous gatherings.
Suffer through it. Open schools (K-12) in-person with protections for teachers, temp scans, and advising immuno-compromised, diabetic, asthmatic, etc individuals to distance learn. Tailor restrictions to hospital capacity trends (for pete's sake, let's get everyone waiting to schedule "elective" surgeries that can't be indefinitely postponed) and expand surge availability and funding/waivers for hospitals to cope with it. Tell Grandma not to pick her grandkids up from school.
|
|
|
On August 04 2020 05:39 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 05:36 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 04 2020 03:05 Gorsameth wrote:On August 04 2020 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 03 2020 23:55 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 03 2020 23:10 LegalLord wrote:
The plateau in reported infection numbers (not just over the weekend but with week-on-week data) seems very much out of sync with the rest of the data and the increasingly alarmed messaging coming from the CDC and from other health officials, even within Trump's inner circle. There's a lot more human firewood yet to be burned through in the US before herd immunity.
The frightening thing about the numbers so far is that as bad as it's been, this is probably with less than 10% of the entire population getting the virus. There's a lot of room for things to get a lot worse, and we're all just being told to pretend like everything is normal, go back to school in the fall, so on and so forth. I'm glad I get to work 95% remote under the current conditions, but I know too many people are operating under a "you don't come to work, you don't eat" ultimatum. We're in desperate need of coordinated action, and not just of the "more stimulus" variety. If the virus' lethality rate is about 1% and there's 350 million people living in the United States. We need around 70% of people to be infected with the virus to achieve actual herd immunity. That's 2 million dead. And that's being conservative. I just want people to keep that in mind whenever the phrase "herd immunity" comes up. Anyone advocating that THAT will be the solution needs to understand what that means. Wasn't the "real" letality around 0.2% ? With 20/20 hindsight, makes me wonder if there should have been be a program to get young people infected/isolated and flushed back into society. is half a million an acceptable number? when does it become ok to just let it run its course? Acknowledging reality is acceptable. Sanctimonius posturing on lockdown isn't. The AVERAGE death rate for this disease is 80 years old. Perpetual lockdowns, keeping kids out of schools for over a year and infinite money printing will result in more death and misery than the disease itself. Reality must be considered. And no one wants that. I have no idea why you guys constantly come up with that. What you need is one real lockdown, for about two months, to kick the disease down, and then some restrictions and social distancing for a long time. The US failed their first lockdown by ending it too quickly due to shitty political leadership. So they need a real one now. Or they accept that they stay a hotbed of disease until (if) a vaccine exists.
Argentina has been on lockdown since march, it didn't erradicate covid but certainly sprinted them towards Venezuela-like economy. To the point they are reaching their highest levels in contagion while easing lockdowns.
The US is no police state, it has neither the police neither the supply capacity to completely shut down for 2 months.It didn't do before, it certainly doesn't now.
|
|
|
On August 04 2020 10:08 JimmiC wrote:
It does not have too. It needs its people to take some responsibility and wear masks and socially distance. And then the areas with worst spread need a lockdown, which can be shortened by people following the rules.
Or the other option is a bunch of death and lives negatively effected for ever.
If you only care about costs, have you heard how much one night in the ICU costs? 25k a dayish and how many people are insured? Also, what about the lifting issues? What they are doing now is wildly expensive.
Edit: one of the odd things about it is the people most against lockdowns are often the same people against masks and social distancing.
I'm not against masks or social distance. I have the luxury of going out once a week for work, and wear a mask with n100 filters if I have to get into any closed bulding.
I'm against endless lockdowns, and I'm against the politization of a disease. To the point in the US, tyrant governors pushing endless lockdowns on business WHILE allowing mass protests has certainly caused push back against more basic, reasonable, measures.
It is really easy to tell people to stay in ther homes when you don't have to make a living. Or to tell that business owner that spent 20 years bulding it, to stay home while it goes bankrupt. Or to ignore the massive increase in muders and suicides. Or to ignore the massive death toll of TB in the third world, way higher than coronavirus.
Massive lockdowns are not a solution, and the dishonest moral presumption that people who oppose them and just greedy people who do not care about others is truly disgusting.
|
|
|
On August 04 2020 10:49 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 10:08 JimmiC wrote:
It does not have too. It needs its people to take some responsibility and wear masks and socially distance. And then the areas with worst spread need a lockdown, which can be shortened by people following the rules.
Or the other option is a bunch of death and lives negatively effected for ever.
If you only care about costs, have you heard how much one night in the ICU costs? 25k a dayish and how many people are insured? Also, what about the lifting issues? What they are doing now is wildly expensive.
Edit: one of the odd things about it is the people most against lockdowns are often the same people against masks and social distancing. I'm not against masks or social distance. I have the luxury of going out once a week for work, and wear a mask with n100 filters if I have to get into any closed bulding. I'm against endless lockdowns, and I'm against the politization of a disease. To the point in the US, tyrant governors pushing endless lockdowns on business WHILE allowing mass protests has certainly caused push back against more basic, reasonable, measures. It is really easy to tell people to stay in ther homes when you don't have to make a living. Or to tell that business owner that spent 20 years bulding it, to stay home while it goes bankrupt. Or to ignore the massive increase in muders and suicides. Or to ignore the massive death toll of TB in the third world, way higher than coronavirus. Massive lockdowns are not a solution, and the dishonest moral presumption that people who oppose them and just greedy people who do not care about others is truly disgusting.
Those "tyrant" governors are only doing that because the Federal Government refuses to implement the kind of national policy that other countries have already done to create national testing programs. We CANT open the economy again without a strict and organized policy for mass testing the populace. If we had that, only the actually sick people would need to be quarantined instead of the entire population.
Since the government refuses to do anything about it for political reasons, the governors have one of two choices. Take things into their own hands or just ignore the pandemic completely. We see how that's working in states like Florida, Georgia and Texas.
You're being distracted, and deflecting from the real problems here. The reasons the different governors are implementing unsustainable policies is because they don't have any good options because the GOOD policies require federal planning and execution that the federal government refuses to do anything about.
That's the truth here. It always been the truth. I live in California under one of your so called "tyrannical" governors and I'm happy we have mask mandates, closed down non-essential businesses (despite being an unemployed service worker too btw) and other things. I don't want Los Angeles to end up like NYC did where everyone is sick at once and we overwhelm the hospitals. It's already bad enough here as it is.
So get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers and condemning thousands to die just to reopen the economy.
|
On August 04 2020 09:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 09:00 Danglars wrote:
For better or worse, it was always going to be 50 separate lockdowns. The US is not a centralized republic with some Merkel issuing dicta and a bunch of Germans moving in lockstep with her.
The pandemic response was over once Governors started marching in mass protests. Compliance with Health Officials ended somewhere between telling the public that masks don't work before asking they be mandatory and saying dense, protesting crowds were not dangerous gatherings.
Suffer through it. Open schools (K-12) in-person with protections for teachers, temp scans, and advising immuno-compromised, diabetic, asthmatic, etc individuals to distance learn. Tailor restrictions to hospital capacity trends (for pete's sake, let's get everyone waiting to schedule "elective" surgeries that can't be indefinitely postponed) and expand surge availability and funding/waivers for hospitals to cope with it. Tell Grandma not to pick her grandkids up from school. No one said dense protesting crowds were good, they told people to distance and many did, but not all. Saying it was safer to protest with distance compared to pretty much any indoor activity would still be true now. And 50 seperate lockdowns would be fine, hell 5000 separate per county would make even more sense.
They didn't say anything, really. Some governors and mayors said to wear masks. But when they walked, actions spoke louder than words. They were shoulder to shoulder in the pictures and videos. That was the moment when the pandemic ended.
Oh it's not over, but it ended in the eyes of Americans being told to comply.
|
|
|
On August 04 2020 11:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 09:43 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2020 09:00 Danglars wrote:
For better or worse, it was always going to be 50 separate lockdowns. The US is not a centralized republic with some Merkel issuing dicta and a bunch of Germans moving in lockstep with her.
The pandemic response was over once Governors started marching in mass protests. Compliance with Health Officials ended somewhere between telling the public that masks don't work before asking they be mandatory and saying dense, protesting crowds were not dangerous gatherings.
Suffer through it. Open schools (K-12) in-person with protections for teachers, temp scans, and advising immuno-compromised, diabetic, asthmatic, etc individuals to distance learn. Tailor restrictions to hospital capacity trends (for pete's sake, let's get everyone waiting to schedule "elective" surgeries that can't be indefinitely postponed) and expand surge availability and funding/waivers for hospitals to cope with it. Tell Grandma not to pick her grandkids up from school. No one said dense protesting crowds were good, they told people to distance and many did, but not all. Saying it was safer to protest with distance compared to pretty much any indoor activity would still be true now. And 50 seperate lockdowns would be fine, hell 5000 separate per county would make even more sense. They didn't say anything, really. Some governors and mayors said to wear masks. But when they walked, actions spoke louder than words. They were shoulder to shoulder in the pictures and videos. That was the moment when the pandemic ended. Oh it's not over, but it ended in the eyes of Americans being told to comply.
What was their excuse for acting like it was over before those protests happened?
|
On August 04 2020 11:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 11:10 Danglars wrote:On August 04 2020 09:43 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2020 09:00 Danglars wrote:
For better or worse, it was always going to be 50 separate lockdowns. The US is not a centralized republic with some Merkel issuing dicta and a bunch of Germans moving in lockstep with her.
The pandemic response was over once Governors started marching in mass protests. Compliance with Health Officials ended somewhere between telling the public that masks don't work before asking they be mandatory and saying dense, protesting crowds were not dangerous gatherings.
Suffer through it. Open schools (K-12) in-person with protections for teachers, temp scans, and advising immuno-compromised, diabetic, asthmatic, etc individuals to distance learn. Tailor restrictions to hospital capacity trends (for pete's sake, let's get everyone waiting to schedule "elective" surgeries that can't be indefinitely postponed) and expand surge availability and funding/waivers for hospitals to cope with it. Tell Grandma not to pick her grandkids up from school. No one said dense protesting crowds were good, they told people to distance and many did, but not all. Saying it was safer to protest with distance compared to pretty much any indoor activity would still be true now. And 50 seperate lockdowns would be fine, hell 5000 separate per county would make even more sense. They didn't say anything, really. Some governors and mayors said to wear masks. But when they walked, actions spoke louder than words. They were shoulder to shoulder in the pictures and videos. That was the moment when the pandemic ended. Oh it's not over, but it ended in the eyes of Americans being told to comply. Can you site those governors and mayors?
Primarily Cuomo and Whitmer, for mayors Bowser and de Blasio. (They quickly changed their tune when the obvious levels of hypocrisy were pointed out by others)
Special pats on the back for de Blasio/Cuomo exemption BLM protests from outdoor restrictions. Citizens had to get a freakin judge to say de Blasio/Cuomo to limit outdoor religious services while condoning and encouraging massive protests.Some first amendment rights are made more important than others, apparently.
This is more of a dialogue on some of the lesser known/understood reasons why Americans are rebelling against state and local lockdown orders. If states like California and New York got a do-over, the proper course would be to enforce neutral criteria for outdoor and indoor events, instead of showing from playing favorites that it's just one set of rules for me, and another set of rules for you.
BLM protests, John Lewis's funeral vs your dad's funeral, the governor's brother traveling to second homes vs you traveling. They all signal caprice, and caprice tells the population to only take the situation sortof seriously.
|
On August 04 2020 11:31 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 11:10 Danglars wrote:On August 04 2020 09:43 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2020 09:00 Danglars wrote:
For better or worse, it was always going to be 50 separate lockdowns. The US is not a centralized republic with some Merkel issuing dicta and a bunch of Germans moving in lockstep with her.
The pandemic response was over once Governors started marching in mass protests. Compliance with Health Officials ended somewhere between telling the public that masks don't work before asking they be mandatory and saying dense, protesting crowds were not dangerous gatherings.
Suffer through it. Open schools (K-12) in-person with protections for teachers, temp scans, and advising immuno-compromised, diabetic, asthmatic, etc individuals to distance learn. Tailor restrictions to hospital capacity trends (for pete's sake, let's get everyone waiting to schedule "elective" surgeries that can't be indefinitely postponed) and expand surge availability and funding/waivers for hospitals to cope with it. Tell Grandma not to pick her grandkids up from school. No one said dense protesting crowds were good, they told people to distance and many did, but not all. Saying it was safer to protest with distance compared to pretty much any indoor activity would still be true now. And 50 seperate lockdowns would be fine, hell 5000 separate per county would make even more sense. They didn't say anything, really. Some governors and mayors said to wear masks. But when they walked, actions spoke louder than words. They were shoulder to shoulder in the pictures and videos. That was the moment when the pandemic ended. Oh it's not over, but it ended in the eyes of Americans being told to comply. What was their excuse for acting like it was over before those protests happened?
You've warned me over replying to your posts, alleging harassment and declaring you would never reply to my posts again, so I must imagine this to be a mistake, and contact me via PM if in a week after thinking it over if you're actually re-evaluating things. Otherwise, refrain.
|
On August 04 2020 11:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 10:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 04 2020 10:08 JimmiC wrote:
It does not have too. It needs its people to take some responsibility and wear masks and socially distance. And then the areas with worst spread need a lockdown, which can be shortened by people following the rules.
Or the other option is a bunch of death and lives negatively effected for ever.
If you only care about costs, have you heard how much one night in the ICU costs? 25k a dayish and how many people are insured? Also, what about the lifting issues? What they are doing now is wildly expensive.
Edit: one of the odd things about it is the people most against lockdowns are often the same people against masks and social distancing. I'm not against masks or social distance. I have the luxury of going out once a week for work, and wear a mask with n100 filters if I have to get into any closed bulding. I'm against endless lockdowns, and I'm against the politization of a disease. To the point in the US, tyrant governors pushing endless lockdowns on business WHILE allowing mass protests has certainly caused push back against more basic, reasonable, measures. It is really easy to tell people to stay in ther homes when you don't have to make a living. Or to tell that business owner that spent 20 years bulding it, to stay home while it goes bankrupt. Or to ignore the massive increase in muders and suicides. Or to ignore the massive death toll of TB in the third world, way higher than coronavirus. Massive lockdowns are not a solution, and the dishonest moral presumption that people who oppose them and just greedy people who do not care about others is truly disgusting. The problem is you are ignoring facts. No one wants endless lockdowns, no one wants short lockdowns it sucks for everyone. It is hard decision for anyone to lockdown and hugely unpopular. The point is to contain it to a point where with vontact tracing you can keep the R below 1. You are delusional if you think the left or whoever wants them. It is sad that many of the US states wasted their lockdown by politicizing the measures that would have kept it down. And because they didn't now they have a terrible choice to make.
Sure, lockdowns temporarily work, but as soon as you lift any restrictions cases significantly rise. It's a fools errand and does way more harm than supposed good. You end up justifying cyclical trends because the virus doesn't go anywhere - it's always here. Not only that, but it seems like people won't tolerate curtailment of their civil liberties and lives for very long so you get pushback (even in so-called enlightened countries like Germany who saw massive demonstrations over the weekend) and people not following even the most basic of recommendations. These things don't exist in a bubble. You want compliance for stuff like mask-wearing, physical distancing, etc.? You gotta meet people where they are and if you push too hard you end up making things way worse. People are likely to follow reasonable recommendations (not orders or mandates) when there's no threat of Government edicts, enforcement, etc.
Just look at all the countries (who according to Simberto did their lockdowns right) coming out of their lockdowns. Cases are significantly shooting up. At some point people are going to have to realize that until this thing mutates into something less virulent we're going to have to live with it and us killing ourselves by prolonged economic shutdown is lunacy.
People who push the lockdown absurdity never look at reality: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/03/world/coronavirus-second-wave-resurgence-intl/index.html
Look how dumb Australia is. They lockdown, come out of it, cases significantly rise, and they reflexively go back into their shell like that's a solution. Sweden did it right, they understood that lockdowns are stupid, the virus is not going anywhere and people should be informed of that truth and not be told idiotic stories about how you have to isolate and shut down your life for the foreseeable future to "manage the virus". Do people not realize you have to produce to consume and without production and economic activity you become paupers? Prolonged shutdown with Government printing presses full steam ahead is lunacy.
|
On August 04 2020 11:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 11:31 NewSunshine wrote:On August 04 2020 11:10 Danglars wrote:On August 04 2020 09:43 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2020 09:00 Danglars wrote:
For better or worse, it was always going to be 50 separate lockdowns. The US is not a centralized republic with some Merkel issuing dicta and a bunch of Germans moving in lockstep with her.
The pandemic response was over once Governors started marching in mass protests. Compliance with Health Officials ended somewhere between telling the public that masks don't work before asking they be mandatory and saying dense, protesting crowds were not dangerous gatherings.
Suffer through it. Open schools (K-12) in-person with protections for teachers, temp scans, and advising immuno-compromised, diabetic, asthmatic, etc individuals to distance learn. Tailor restrictions to hospital capacity trends (for pete's sake, let's get everyone waiting to schedule "elective" surgeries that can't be indefinitely postponed) and expand surge availability and funding/waivers for hospitals to cope with it. Tell Grandma not to pick her grandkids up from school. No one said dense protesting crowds were good, they told people to distance and many did, but not all. Saying it was safer to protest with distance compared to pretty much any indoor activity would still be true now. And 50 seperate lockdowns would be fine, hell 5000 separate per county would make even more sense. They didn't say anything, really. Some governors and mayors said to wear masks. But when they walked, actions spoke louder than words. They were shoulder to shoulder in the pictures and videos. That was the moment when the pandemic ended. Oh it's not over, but it ended in the eyes of Americans being told to comply. What was their excuse for acting like it was over before those protests happened? You've warned me over replying to your posts, alleging harassment and declaring you would never reply to my posts again, so I must imagine this to be a mistake, and contact me via PM if in a week after thinking it over if you're actually re-evaluating things. Otherwise, refrain.
I was asking a question. If you'd rather not answer that's fine.
And since you brought it up, I made it clear to you I wanted to halt our exchange. You refused to respect that. You got banned. That's on you. I got over it.
|
On August 04 2020 12:56 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 11:41 Danglars wrote:On August 04 2020 11:31 NewSunshine wrote:On August 04 2020 11:10 Danglars wrote:On August 04 2020 09:43 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2020 09:00 Danglars wrote:
For better or worse, it was always going to be 50 separate lockdowns. The US is not a centralized republic with some Merkel issuing dicta and a bunch of Germans moving in lockstep with her.
The pandemic response was over once Governors started marching in mass protests. Compliance with Health Officials ended somewhere between telling the public that masks don't work before asking they be mandatory and saying dense, protesting crowds were not dangerous gatherings.
Suffer through it. Open schools (K-12) in-person with protections for teachers, temp scans, and advising immuno-compromised, diabetic, asthmatic, etc individuals to distance learn. Tailor restrictions to hospital capacity trends (for pete's sake, let's get everyone waiting to schedule "elective" surgeries that can't be indefinitely postponed) and expand surge availability and funding/waivers for hospitals to cope with it. Tell Grandma not to pick her grandkids up from school. No one said dense protesting crowds were good, they told people to distance and many did, but not all. Saying it was safer to protest with distance compared to pretty much any indoor activity would still be true now. And 50 seperate lockdowns would be fine, hell 5000 separate per county would make even more sense. They didn't say anything, really. Some governors and mayors said to wear masks. But when they walked, actions spoke louder than words. They were shoulder to shoulder in the pictures and videos. That was the moment when the pandemic ended. Oh it's not over, but it ended in the eyes of Americans being told to comply. What was their excuse for acting like it was over before those protests happened? You've warned me over replying to your posts, alleging harassment and declaring you would never reply to my posts again, so I must imagine this to be a mistake, and contact me via PM if in a week after thinking it over if you're actually re-evaluating things. Otherwise, refrain. I was asking a question. If you'd rather not answer that's fine. And since you brought it up, I made it clear to you I wanted to halt our exchange. You refused to respect that. You got banned. That's on you. I got over it.
PM'd.
|
On August 04 2020 11:49 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 11:00 JimmiC wrote:On August 04 2020 10:49 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 04 2020 10:08 JimmiC wrote:
It does not have too. It needs its people to take some responsibility and wear masks and socially distance. And then the areas with worst spread need a lockdown, which can be shortened by people following the rules.
Or the other option is a bunch of death and lives negatively effected for ever.
If you only care about costs, have you heard how much one night in the ICU costs? 25k a dayish and how many people are insured? Also, what about the lifting issues? What they are doing now is wildly expensive.
Edit: one of the odd things about it is the people most against lockdowns are often the same people against masks and social distancing. I'm not against masks or social distance. I have the luxury of going out once a week for work, and wear a mask with n100 filters if I have to get into any closed bulding. I'm against endless lockdowns, and I'm against the politization of a disease. To the point in the US, tyrant governors pushing endless lockdowns on business WHILE allowing mass protests has certainly caused push back against more basic, reasonable, measures. It is really easy to tell people to stay in ther homes when you don't have to make a living. Or to tell that business owner that spent 20 years bulding it, to stay home while it goes bankrupt. Or to ignore the massive increase in muders and suicides. Or to ignore the massive death toll of TB in the third world, way higher than coronavirus. Massive lockdowns are not a solution, and the dishonest moral presumption that people who oppose them and just greedy people who do not care about others is truly disgusting. The problem is you are ignoring facts. No one wants endless lockdowns, no one wants short lockdowns it sucks for everyone. It is hard decision for anyone to lockdown and hugely unpopular. The point is to contain it to a point where with vontact tracing you can keep the R below 1. You are delusional if you think the left or whoever wants them. It is sad that many of the US states wasted their lockdown by politicizing the measures that would have kept it down. And because they didn't now they have a terrible choice to make. Sure, lockdowns temporarily work, but as soon as you lift any restrictions cases significantly rise. It's a fools errand and does way more harm than supposed good. You end up justifying cyclical trends because the virus doesn't go anywhere - it's always here. Not only that, but it seems like people won't tolerate curtailment of their civil liberties and lives for very long so you get pushback (even in so-called enlightened countries like Germany who saw massive demonstrations over the weekend) and people not following even the most basic of recommendations. These things don't exist in a bubble. You want compliance for stuff like mask-wearing, physical distancing, etc.? You gotta meet people where they are and if you push too hard you end up making things way worse. People are likely to follow reasonable recommendations (not orders or mandates) when there's no threat of Government edicts, enforcement, etc. Just look at all the countries (who according to Simberto did their lockdowns right) coming out of their lockdowns. Cases are significantly shooting up. At some point people are going to have to realize that until this thing mutates into something less virulent we're going to have to live with it and us killing ourselves by prolonged economic shutdown is lunacy. People who push the lockdown absurdity never look at reality: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/03/world/coronavirus-second-wave-resurgence-intl/index.htmlLook how dumb Australia is. They lockdown, come out of it, cases significantly rise, and they reflexively go back into their shell like that's a solution. Sweden did it right, they understood that lockdowns are stupid, the virus is not going anywhere and people should be informed of that truth and not be told idiotic stories about how you have to isolate and shut down your life for the foreseeable future to "manage the virus". Do people not realize you have to produce to consume and without production and economic activity you become paupers? Prolonged shutdown with Government printing presses full steam ahead is lunacy.
You're right. No one wants full lockdown indefinitely. But the thing you're consistently failing to even care about is that it's not an on-off switch. Every competent country has locked down, and then opened up in some way once case loads were under control. Slow reopening coupled with competent contact tracing and fast test results is how you break the chain of spread.
The competence of execution varies dramatically based on location. If you fuck it up, you start over from lockdowns again. That's the reality of containment of a disease like covid without a vaccine.
Here's Quebec, a province in canada that royally fucked up early on. They locked down, contained it from a peak of around 1000 cases a day, and slowly managed the reopening so that now, it's around 150 cases a day
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hXnLoyt.png)
What's behind that is a fucking plan. Here's Ontario's plan.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/reopening-ontario
You can reopen spaces that can safely implement covid distancing/prevention protocols, and slowly phase in higher risk activities as the case load declines.
Canada spent something like $2000 a person in Canada on average to help ease people through the lockdowns. The USA is going to blow through that figure without any brakes on the train with incompetence of execution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
