Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 72764 times)

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1400 on: May 11, 2020, 05:46:58 PM »
The "voluntary...philosophy" has led them to have the 6th highest mortality rate in the world.  If you live in Sweden your next restaurant meal could be your last, but you're only infecting and killing yourself. And, of course, potentially everyone else at your table, and your family, and theirs, and people at the next table, and their families.  But since they have only the 6th highest COVID-19 mortality rate, that might seem like a reasonable tradeoff.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1401 on: May 11, 2020, 06:13:01 PM »
yup - but "run rampant" is still not a particularly apt description. It would be much worse there, otherwise.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1402 on: May 11, 2020, 06:49:34 PM »
Using death ranks doesn't show a clear picture. Spain had one of the strictest lockdowns, but their deaths per capita is higher. You also would want to look at percentages. For instance, Sweden has 319/M while the Netherlands are ranked right below them at 317 with stricter measures. Meanwhile, there are lots of confounding factors like the age of your population, percentage of urban population, air quality, etc.

More disturbing is that their tests per capita is the lowest in Western Europe with the exception of Greece, which begs the question of whether they are accurately capturing deaths and the infection rate.

And the voluntary measures really can't be overlooked. It isn't really about the restrictive policy, it's about compliance voluntary or otherwise. We can also look to Georgia (the state) as we assess the need for strict measures. As I said previously, I'll freely admit that we didn't need strict policies if we relax without serious repercussions. Which doesn't make them a bad idea at the time.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1403 on: May 12, 2020, 12:50:28 AM »
We're told one of the main ways covid transmits is through respitory droplets. This is also how influenza is primarily transmitted.

Below is a new peer reviewed study published in CDC's Emerging Infectious Disease periodical stating that masks are essentially useless in preventing spread of the flu.

“In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks. (RR 0,78 95% CI 0.51-1.20F=30%, p=0.25)”

They do note that “all the components of the transmission route have not been studied extensively” but shouldn’t masks show at least minimal effect in stopping transmission? Unless they are as truly ineffective as the article suggests? I suspect even if this legimatley is the case it won’t stop a lot of people from continuing to wear them.

“There is limited evidence for there effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission, either when worn by the infected person for source control, or when worn by uninflected person to reduce exposure”

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/pdfs/19-0994.pdf

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1404 on: May 12, 2020, 02:36:38 AM »
I tried to read that article but it quickly went into the weeds. It was difficult to understand.

I found this article pretty balanced if much less scientific.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/are-masks-the-next-front-in-the-coronavirus-culture-war-182414248.html

I would put it this way. If someone knows they are sick and contagious and they are going somewhere like an emergency room would they be less likely to spread this virus if they have a mask on or if they don't?

In the church choir group where so many people got infected and they insist they were careful not to touch things, would as many have gotten infected if they had all been wearing masks compared to how many that got infected without any of them wearing masks? Of course it would have been harder to sing but common sense says that fewer would have gotten infected and almost certainly it couldn't have made things any worse. Now sometimes common sense can be wrong, but would more people have gotten infected if the infected person or persons had been wearing masks while they sang? It's hard to imagine how that would be possible. The mechanism by which wearing masks reduces the chances of infecting others is pretty clear. The mechanism by which a mask would increase infections over not wearing a mask requires some contortions especially to demonstrate how the mask would be more dangerous than no mask, for instance the virus would land on the mask and then you'd touch it as opposed to the virus would just land right on your face and you'd touch that or worse yet the virus would ride a droplet right up your nose or into your mouth and straight on down to your lungs.

Of course the masks aren't foolproof. The Chinese doctor who sounded the alarm and later died was convinced he contracted the virus through his eyes. And if it can get in through the eyes can it also escape from the eyes? Could you give someone the virus just by looking at them, like an invisible laser vision attack? And of course the mask has to be worn with some measure of simple common sense, and not like this:

https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/covidiot-woman-cuts-hole-in-face-mask-to-make-breathing-easier-watch/587757

Okay but seriously now, this virus is still largely an unknown quantity. It's far better to err on the side of caution at this point until we learn more. And speaking of learning more, the more we learn the more freaky this virus seems.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/10/coronavirus-attacks-body-symptoms/?arc404=true


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1406 on: May 12, 2020, 10:06:03 AM »
The argument against masks is that your hands wind up near your face way more often than if you didn't have one. It's not a contortion, there is science behind it. I think it is probably largely a wash.

After all, if your hands get contaminated, they contaminate surfaces and that transmission lasts much longer than droplets are airborne.

I'm not against masks, I'm happy to wear one in public. I'm just saying you don't need to ridicule valid concerns about wearing masks. Remember that the governor of Florida put his mask on sideways while surrounded by people wearing theirs properly.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1407 on: May 12, 2020, 10:45:10 AM »
The argument against masks is that your hands wind up near your face way more often than if you didn't have one. It's not a contortion, there is science behind it. I think it is probably largely a wash.

After all, if your hands get contaminated, they contaminate surfaces and that transmission lasts much longer than droplets are airborne.

I'm not against masks, I'm happy to wear one in public. I'm just saying you don't need to ridicule valid concerns about wearing masks. Remember that the governor of Florida put his mask on sideways while surrounded by people wearing theirs properly.

Yes, but recall that the most efficacious use of a mask is to limit the spread from you, not to you.  I suspect a measurable number of infections have resulted from people messing with their mask exteriors when in the presence of people who aren't wearing them (and thereby spreading the virus) and then transferring the virus onto their faces.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1408 on: May 12, 2020, 11:06:03 AM »
Yes, but recall that the most efficacious use of a mask is to limit the spread from you, not to you.

Except, apparently it doesn't. Per the CDC's own research.

That said, I'm with TheDrake; wear a mask if you feel like it's the right thing to do.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1409 on: May 12, 2020, 11:13:01 AM »
Yes, but recall that the most efficacious use of a mask is to limit the spread from you, not to you.

Except, apparently it doesn't. Per the CDC's own research.

That said, I'm with TheDrake; wear a mask if you feel like it's the right thing to do.

That study doesn't discuss coronavirus, which has a different level of infectious transmissibility and susceptibility than the flu.  Do you wear one?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1410 on: May 12, 2020, 11:22:11 AM »
Yes, but recall that the most efficacious use of a mask is to limit the spread from you, not to you.

Except, apparently it doesn't. Per the CDC's own research.

That said, I'm with TheDrake; wear a mask if you feel like it's the right thing to do.

That study doesn't discuss coronavirus, which has a different level of infectious transmissibility and susceptibility than the flu.  Do you wear one?

I was forced to wear one the other day at Costco, but other than that no. I'm also not really going out at all that much aside from running, biking etc.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1411 on: May 12, 2020, 11:26:58 AM »
That study doesn't discuss coronavirus, which has a different level of infectious transmissibility and susceptibility than the flu.

The transmission mode is the same - breath, moisture, respiratory droplets. Are you skeptical because it's specific to the transmission mechanics but was based on a different virus? Or is it more a case of better safe than sorry?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1412 on: May 12, 2020, 11:29:17 AM »
That study doesn't discuss coronavirus, which has a different level of infectious transmissibility and susceptibility than the flu.

The transmission mode is the same - breath, moisture, respiratory droplets. Are you skeptical because it's specific to the transmission mechanics but was based on a different virus? Or is it more a case of better safe than sorry?

Skeptical that the results directly apply.  Given the nearly unanimous recommendations from scientists and doctors that wearing a mask is a good idea, I'll wait to hear otherwise from a study that directly addresses coronavirus.

Do you maintain social distancing, or that also not effective?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1413 on: May 12, 2020, 11:30:35 AM »
That study doesn't discuss coronavirus, which has a different level of infectious transmissibility and susceptibility than the flu.

The transmission mode is the same - breath, moisture, respiratory droplets. Are you skeptical because it's specific to the transmission mechanics but was based on a different virus? Or is it more a case of better safe than sorry?

Skeptical that the results directly apply.  Given the nearly unanimous recommendations from scientists and doctors that wearing a mask is a good idea, I'll wait to hear otherwise from a study that directly addresses coronavirus.

Do you maintain social distancing, or that also not effective?

I do maintain distancing. And I'm not certain masks aren't effective.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1414 on: May 12, 2020, 11:30:44 AM »
Different transmissibility and susceptibility values change the mathematics on the efficacy of any mitigation method, be it hand washing, distancing or the wearing of masks.

You cannot just assume the risks and benefits would be the same.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1415 on: May 12, 2020, 11:33:43 AM »
It will be interesting this Thursday, as I'm flying to Denver. I'm not sure if the airline (Alaska in this case) will require masks on the plane or not. I'll report back.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1416 on: May 12, 2020, 03:37:54 PM »
Quote
Los Angeles County’s stay-at-home orders will “with all certainty” be extended for the next three months, county Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer acknowledged during a Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday.

3 more months. Lockdown of some type in LA until mid-August. There should be riots.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1417 on: May 12, 2020, 04:07:41 PM »
Quote
Los Angeles County’s stay-at-home orders will “with all certainty” be extended for the next three months, county Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer acknowledged during a Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday.

3 more months. Lockdown of some type in LA until mid-August. There should be riots.

Need more context: What are the numbers in LA county. What authority does Ferrer have?
"Lock down of some type" could be a lot of things.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1418 on: May 12, 2020, 04:27:15 PM »
LA County currently in stage 2 of their reopening.

Quote
Currently, LA County is in phase two of the five-stage roadmap to recovery which allows florists and some retailers to offer curbside pickup only, car dealership showrooms to reopen with appropriate physical distancing and infection control measures, and trails and golf courses to reopen with pro shops remaining closed to public entry. Public Health surveyed businesses this weekend to determine if physical distancing and infection control measures were being followed. Of the 410 businesses surveyed, 162 were in violation of the Health Officer Order because they were allowing customers into stores, not following physical distancing measures and not requiring customers to wear cloth face coverings. As a reminder, retail establishments are closed to public entry and must ensure compliance with all protocols before reopening. Inspectors will continue to monitor for compliance and ensure that all adhere to the Health Officer Order.

Crunch's quote is accurate enough, but I'm sure we can all play the Trump card now and explain what she really meant to say.

The roadmap:

The roadmap

They are about to open up manufacturers, offices, and retail along with libraries, museums, and galleries.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1419 on: May 12, 2020, 06:00:58 PM »
That study doesn't discuss coronavirus, which has a different level of infectious transmissibility and susceptibility than the flu.

The transmission mode is the same - breath, moisture, respiratory droplets. Are you skeptical because it's specific to the transmission mechanics but was based on a different virus? Or is it more a case of better safe than sorry?

Skeptical that the results directly apply.  Given the nearly unanimous recommendations from scientists and doctors that wearing a mask is a good idea, I'll wait to hear otherwise from a study that directly addresses coronavirus.

Do you maintain social distancing, or that also not effective?

I do maintain distancing. And I'm not certain masks aren't effective.

In that case I don't understand why you choose not to wear them.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2020, 06:03:11 PM by Kasandra »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1420 on: May 12, 2020, 06:04:32 PM »
LA County currently in stage 2 of their reopening.

Quote
Currently, LA County is in phase two of the five-stage roadmap to recovery which allows florists and some retailers to offer curbside pickup only, car dealership showrooms to reopen with appropriate physical distancing and infection control measures, and trails and golf courses to reopen with pro shops remaining closed to public entry. Public Health surveyed businesses this weekend to determine if physical distancing and infection control measures were being followed. Of the 410 businesses surveyed, 162 were in violation of the Health Officer Order because they were allowing customers into stores, not following physical distancing measures and not requiring customers to wear cloth face coverings. As a reminder, retail establishments are closed to public entry and must ensure compliance with all protocols before reopening. Inspectors will continue to monitor for compliance and ensure that all adhere to the Health Officer Order.

Crunch's quote is accurate enough, but I'm sure we can all play the Trump card now and explain what she really meant to say.

The roadmap:

The roadmap

They are about to open up manufacturers, offices, and retail along with libraries, museums, and galleries.

Don't be a killjoy; he was really getting off on that one.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1421 on: May 12, 2020, 06:16:18 PM »
The problem with saying to wear a mask if you want to is that defeats the purpose. It's like telling someone if you don't want to get hit by a stray bullet from celebratory gunfire shot up into the air a mile away then don't fire your gun into the air. If others aren't wearing masks then my mask isn't going to help me any. In fact everyone could be wearing masks except one person and if that one person is the spreader then they are all imperiled. Just crystalizing the obvious point of contention here and why people are getting so upset at others not wearing masks.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1422 on: May 12, 2020, 06:21:37 PM »
Maybe a compromise could be that masks are required in grocery stores where people need to go but are optional in other places like movie theaters, restaurants, bars, concerts, and churches. So if people want to go out there maskless and infect everyone to help usher in herd immunity that's their call but they'll only be infecting other volunteers while those who would rather take a pass for a while are afforded that option.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1423 on: May 12, 2020, 06:42:32 PM »
Maybe a compromise could be that masks are required in grocery stores where people need to go but are optional in other places like movie theaters, restaurants, bars, concerts, and churches. So if people want to go out there maskless and infect everyone to help usher in herd immunity that's their call but they'll only be infecting other volunteers while those who would rather take a pass for a while are afforded that option.

Your post before this one was perfect.  Here you wander off into mebbe's.  You catch the virus based on opportunity, which is nothing more than viral load.  Everyone needs to learn when and where they are exposed to higher amounts of the virus particles.  Then you protect yourself, distance or avoid the locale altogether.  Read the article I posted a link to earlier, as it gives a very good overview of the issue.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1424 on: May 12, 2020, 08:34:28 PM »
That study doesn't discuss coronavirus, which has a different level of infectious transmissibility and susceptibility than the flu.

The transmission mode is the same - breath, moisture, respiratory droplets. Are you skeptical because it's specific to the transmission mechanics but was based on a different virus? Or is it more a case of better safe than sorry?

Skeptical that the results directly apply.  Given the nearly unanimous recommendations from scientists and doctors that wearing a mask is a good idea, I'll wait to hear otherwise from a study that directly addresses coronavirus.

Do you maintain social distancing, or that also not effective?

I do maintain distancing. And I'm not certain masks aren't effective.

In that case I don't understand why you choose not to wear them.

I live on 10 acres and my nearest town where I shop has an total infection rate of 0.01% and a death rate of 0.0002%, all of which have occurred in a nursing home.

So I'm following the CDC's current recommendations: "CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain."

They add that these guidelines are important "especially in areas of significant community-based transmission." I believe I'm behaving responsibly.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1425 on: May 12, 2020, 10:08:54 PM »
Is it still a town if it has 500,000 people in it (or more)?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1426 on: May 13, 2020, 08:13:54 AM »
That study doesn't discuss coronavirus, which has a different level of infectious transmissibility and susceptibility than the flu.

The transmission mode is the same - breath, moisture, respiratory droplets. Are you skeptical because it's specific to the transmission mechanics but was based on a different virus? Or is it more a case of better safe than sorry?

Skeptical that the results directly apply.  Given the nearly unanimous recommendations from scientists and doctors that wearing a mask is a good idea, I'll wait to hear otherwise from a study that directly addresses coronavirus.

Do you maintain social distancing, or that also not effective?

I do maintain distancing. And I'm not certain masks aren't effective.

In that case I don't understand why you choose not to wear them.

I live on 10 acres and my nearest town where I shop has an total infection rate of 0.01% and a death rate of 0.0002%, all of which have occurred in a nursing home.

So I'm following the CDC's current recommendations: "CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain."

They add that these guidelines are important "especially in areas of significant community-based transmission." I believe I'm behaving responsibly.

But he doesn’t want you to behave responsibly. He wants you to behave fearfully.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1427 on: May 13, 2020, 09:21:22 AM »
Quote
But he doesn’t want you to behave responsibly. He wants you to behave fearfully.

Why would "he" (whoever that is) want him to "behave fearfully"?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1428 on: May 13, 2020, 10:14:34 AM »
The problem with saying to wear a mask if you want to is that defeats the purpose. It's like telling someone if you don't want to get hit by a stray bullet from celebratory gunfire shot up into the air a mile away then don't fire your gun into the air. If others aren't wearing masks then my mask isn't going to help me any. In fact everyone could be wearing masks except one person and if that one person is the spreader then they are all imperiled. Just crystalizing the obvious point of contention here and why people are getting so upset at others not wearing masks.

I'm not sure if it defeats the purpose to say 'if you want to'.

The assumption here is that if everyone wore a mask everyone would be protecting each other from the virus and everyone would be safe. However that would also require people to maintain social distancing and hand hygiene. The most likely of coming into contact with the virus is by touching it and then the face.  Every-time a person adjusts the mask they undermine its protection. If they or the mask is infected and they touch it and then touch other things and others touch that...
How many people have you seen pulling the mask down to talk and then pulling it up? There is a reasons studies are inconclusive as to the protection offered to the general population by wearing masks. Let alone none medical ones.

If people aren't cleaning their mask and washing their hands after handling it they are putting themselves at even a greater risk.

I'm all for wearing masks however the danger is that it creates a false sense of security where one might let ones guard down. I imagine many people thinking it safe to go out when they don't feel great because they have a mask.

If were going to be wearing masks we need to be educated on how to do so.




ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1429 on: May 13, 2020, 11:34:58 AM »
Is it still a town if it has 500,000 people in it (or more)?

Nah, that's probably my bad math, it's not a big city. I should have just said infections and deaths are statistically insignificant and left it at that. Deaths at zero if you're not in a nursing home and under 80.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1430 on: May 13, 2020, 12:00:50 PM »
Vaccines are not mandatory across the board, but they are still highly effective. It depends on how many people would voluntarily wear the mask and wear it correctly whether that would also be effective.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1431 on: May 13, 2020, 02:03:49 PM »
Of course the masks aren't foolproof. The Chinese doctor who sounded the alarm and later died was convinced he contracted the virus through his eyes. And if it can get in through the eyes can it also escape from the eyes?

The eyes have lacrimal (tear) glands that drain into the nose. So infection entering the eyes is likely, especially if you are working in an area with high viral load - as a doctor would be.  That is why doctors need to wear glasses and face shields.  There might be virus secreted in the tears, but tears don't aerosolize, so eye secretions are unlikely to be a source of infection.  Personally I always wear glasses and a face mask when I go in public and social distance and try to go at times that other people are less likely.

ScottF,

I pointed out from the beginning that masks would likely have limited or modest benefit and that there was a legitimate fear that mask usage might reduce usage of more effective measures such as social distancing.  The reason masks likely have limited benefit is that most respiratory illnesses are primarily transfered via fomites - the infected individual touches their face such as rubbing their mouth or wiping their nose; then they touch a public surface; then an unifected person touches the surface then touches their face.  Masks can concentrate respiratory and nasal secretions, so when the infected person touches their face or adjusts their mask - they are getting a more concentrated dosage of virus on their hands.  Also many people increase their face touching when they are wearing a mask.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1432 on: May 13, 2020, 02:50:18 PM »
If the virus is coming in through the eyes then without eye protection the only protection you have left is the other person wearing their mask. I see very few people wearing eye protection. As far as I know it hasn't been widely recommended. Yes it would be beneficial and if some people are doing that they should be safer but if wearing masks including even do-it-yourself ones is a burden or too much to ask then asking everyone to wear eye protection that would stop the virus seems like it's just not going to happen.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1433 on: May 13, 2020, 03:46:39 PM »
It's still just a matter of viral load (I'll ask LetterRip to correct me if that's not right), which comes from exposure to a high particle density or a lower density for a longer period of time.  The eyes take in less of airborne particles than the nose or mouth.  Doctors wear glasses or face shields to protect their eyes because the environment they work in exposes them to a much higher load than ordinary people would be exposed to in ordinary situations.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1434 on: May 13, 2020, 04:24:12 PM »
For people not in prolonged direct contact with other people PPE is required. For the majority of people not in that position that contract the virus it due to touching it and then touching their face.

Their have been some interesting experience where one person has their hand sprayed with stuff that will show up un UV light. He's in a buffet restaurant and after 15 min almost everyone in the restaurant has the stuff on their hands, cloths and some the face. 

Like fish it seems we swim in our own crap and always have even if we don't like to think about it. The bodies ability to deal with it is amazing. 

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1435 on: May 13, 2020, 05:13:05 PM »
"It is clear this virus disproportionately impacts our seniors and those with preexisting conditions. Consider the fact that 2% of people in nursing homes have died, .035% of people over 65 not in nursing homes have died and .006% of everyone else.  This must inform how we reopen" @JohnDelaney

This kind of common sense seems to be finally gaining momentum and breaking through the apocalypse narrative.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1436 on: May 13, 2020, 11:41:46 PM »
"It is clear this virus disproportionately impacts our seniors and those with preexisting conditions. Consider the fact that 2% of people in nursing homes have died, .035% of people over 65 not in nursing homes have died and .006% of everyone else.  This must inform how we reopen" @JohnDelaney

This kind of common sense seems to be finally gaining momentum and breaking through the apocalypse narrative.

Are you seriously citing the percentage of the total population instead of the infected population that have died? 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1437 on: May 14, 2020, 07:30:35 AM »
LA mayor Eric Garcetti:
Quote
We’ve never been fully closed, we’ll never be completely open until we have a cure.

LA lockdown will now be forever.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1438 on: May 14, 2020, 09:28:43 AM »
LA mayor Eric Garcetti:
Quote
We’ve never been fully closed, we’ll never be completely open until we have a cure.

LA lockdown will now be forever.

Actually saw that interview and your characterization is alarmist for no reason (other then possibly political). He most certainly did not say that Lock-down will be "Forever"
There is a lot of space bin "we’ll never be completely open until we have a cure"

You can read the worst in people that you view as being the other however that is no difference then your accusation that that is what the 'other' are doing to you.

If we want better we have got to stop this jumping and snippets of info, providing no context, and jumping to the worst conclusions.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1439 on: May 14, 2020, 09:36:37 AM »
OK, when will there be a cure?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1440 on: May 14, 2020, 10:11:52 AM »
Nearly 3 million hit unemployment last week, total us up to 36 million now.

When do you guys think it will be enough?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1441 on: May 14, 2020, 10:22:48 AM »
Nearly 3 million hit unemployment last week, total us up to 36 million now.

When do you guys think it will be enough?

When the white house guidelines for reopening are met.


ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1442 on: May 14, 2020, 11:01:44 AM »
What we need to see, which nobody appears to be willing/able to show is where the covid deaths line intersects with the "deaths/damage from mitigation efforts" line.

Depending on the lockdown efforts, they definitely converge - it's just a matter of when. People who are disparaging Fauci and thinking that continuing lockdowns is somehow his fault are dumb. He is providing expertise and guidance optimized for the optimal prevention of deaths from infection. That's his job. No disease expert every got fired for being too cautious.

He has admitted he is not an expert on how that guidance should be factored into the economy and more broad-reaching factors like mental health, and other long-term social issues like school closures, etc. That's where we have to rely on our elected officials (governors, etc.) to make pragmatic decisions that factor both sets of variables. To pretend that the covid infection/death line is the only line that matters in perpetuity is not only foolish but cowardly.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1443 on: May 14, 2020, 11:23:17 AM »
What we need to see, which nobody appears to be willing/able to show is where the covid deaths line intersects with the "deaths/damage from mitigation efforts" line.

Depending on the lockdown efforts, they definitely converge - it's just a matter of when. People who are disparaging Fauci and thinking that continuing lockdowns is somehow his fault are dumb. He is providing expertise and guidance optimized for the optimal prevention of deaths from infection. That's his job. No disease expert every got fired for being too cautious.

He has admitted he is not an expert on how that guidance should be factored into the economy and more broad-reaching factors like mental health, and other long-term social issues like school closures, etc. That's where we have to rely on our elected officials (governors, etc.) to make pragmatic decisions that factor both sets of variables. To pretend that the covid infection/death line is the only line that matters in perpetuity is not only foolish but cowardly.

If only there were a branch of government that the nations top disease and economic experts reported to that could put out guidance for the nation. Oh, wait, that's the white house and they already put out guidelines.

Do you think those guidelines reasonable?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1444 on: May 14, 2020, 11:30:50 AM »
What we need to see, which nobody appears to be willing/able to show is where the covid deaths line intersects with the "deaths/damage from mitigation efforts" line.

Europe doesn't have near the unemployment/healthcare crisis that we have. Because insurance is tied to employment and because we don't have emergency programs already in place to allow companies to furlough workers with government reimbursement during a crisis we are hurting individuals much more than we otherwise would. Economically we have options for dampening the impact. But McConnel and the Senate are opposing many measures that would send money to cities, states, and hospitals. In addition to more funds for individuals and those laid off. These are economic policy choices we've made that can be modified to not ruin people economically due to the coronavirus.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1445 on: May 14, 2020, 11:41:39 AM »
Interesting studies out if the UK that are looking at Flu vaccines as a contributor to Covid-19 morbidity rates. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/niall-mccrae-david-kurten-eu-numbers-show-correlation-flu-vaccine-coronavirus-deaths/

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1446 on: May 14, 2020, 11:45:36 AM »
Interesting studies out if the UK that are looking at Flu vaccines as a contributor to Covid-19 morbidity rates. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/niall-mccrae-david-kurten-eu-numbers-show-correlation-flu-vaccine-coronavirus-deaths/

It is also interesting that Roche would not publish their data that proved their vaccine was effective, and follow-up tests to verify their data didn't agree. It's like walking through a minefield.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1447 on: May 14, 2020, 11:46:14 AM »
What we need to see, which nobody appears to be willing/able to show is where the covid deaths line intersects with the "deaths/damage from mitigation efforts" line.

Depending on the lockdown efforts, they definitely converge - it's just a matter of when. People who are disparaging Fauci and thinking that continuing lockdowns is somehow his fault are dumb. He is providing expertise and guidance optimized for the optimal prevention of deaths from infection. That's his job. No disease expert every got fired for being too cautious.

He has admitted he is not an expert on how that guidance should be factored into the economy and more broad-reaching factors like mental health, and other long-term social issues like school closures, etc. That's where we have to rely on our elected officials (governors, etc.) to make pragmatic decisions that factor both sets of variables. To pretend that the covid infection/death line is the only line that matters in perpetuity is not only foolish but cowardly.

If only there were a branch of government that the nations top disease and economic experts reported to that could put out guidance for the nation. Oh, wait, that's the white house and they already put out guidelines.

Do you think those guidelines reasonable?

Those are federal guidelines and I hadn't realized they had economic experts involved. Who were the Fauci/Byrx economic counterparts and what factors did they incorporate in helping determine the gating parameters? Fauci can show his work via projections and assumptions.

Regardless, national guidelines are just that. It's on governors to make the hard decisions locally. It's my opinion that many of them are acting almost entirely as proxies for Fauci and not willing/able to incorporate broader factors.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1448 on: May 14, 2020, 11:55:15 AM »
Interesting studies out if the UK that are looking at Flu vaccines as a contributor to Covid-19 morbidity rates. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/niall-mccrae-david-kurten-eu-numbers-show-correlation-flu-vaccine-coronavirus-deaths/

That's not a study, its not even that interesting. They compare the rates of elderly vaccinated with the death rate per capita for the entire country. A study would compare the death rates of the elderly with similar medical conditions to those without.

Even with that data you would need to dig deeper because on its face people with comorbidities are more likely than those without to be encouraged to and receive the vaccine.

That article asks some interesting questions but to call it a study is laughable.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1449 on: May 14, 2020, 12:14:39 PM »
Interesting studies out if the UK that are looking at Flu vaccines as a contributor to Covid-19 morbidity rates. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/niall-mccrae-david-kurten-eu-numbers-show-correlation-flu-vaccine-coronavirus-deaths/

That's not a study, its not even that interesting. They compare the rates of elderly vaccinated with the death rate per capita for the entire country. A study would compare the death rates of the elderly with similar medical conditions to those without.

Even with that data you would need to dig deeper because on its face people with comorbidities are more likely than those without to be encouraged to and receive the vaccine.

That article asks some interesting questions but to call it a study is laughable.

Really? I didn't even look at the link but your intent with a reply like this seems unnecessarily dismissive and insulting.

So far, the only laughable part of the entire exchange is right here:

Quote
it isn't even that interesting
Quote
that article asks some interesting questions