How can a disease with a 1% mortality rate shut down the U.S?
This article cuts to the bone.
Go to the link for the author's sources and references.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
There are two problems with this question.
1. It neglects the law of large numbers; and
2. It assumes that one of two things happen: you die or you’re 100% fine.
The US has a population of 328,200,000. If one percent of the population dies, that’s 3,282,000 people dead.
Three million people dead would monkey wrench the economy no matter what. That more than doubles the number of annual deaths all at once.
The second bit is people keep talking about deaths. Deaths, deaths, deaths. Only one percent die! Just one percent!
One is a small number! No big deal, right?
What about the people who survive?
For every one person who dies:
-
19 more require hospitalization.
-
18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives.
-
10 will have permanent lung damage.
-
3 will have strokes.
-
2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination.
- 2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function.
So now all of a sudden, that “but it’s only 1% fatal!” becomes:
- 3,282,000 people dead.
- 62,358,000 hospitalized.
- 59,076,000 people with permanent heart damage.
- 32,820,000 people with permanent lung damage.
- 9,846,000 people with strokes.
- 6,564,000 people with muscle weakness.
- 6,564,000 people with loss of cognitive function.
That's the thing that the folks who keep going on about “only 1% dead, what’s the big deal?” don’t get.
The choice is not “ruin the economy to save 1%.” If we reopen the economy, it will be destroyed anyway. The US economy cannot survive everyone getting COVID-19.
Tags
Who is online
177 visitors
Answered by Franklin Veaux:
I love it when the numbers are laid out straight for people to see. btw.. this does not contain, the great unknown, which is, does the disease hide in our systems (like it does with other animals) and become a more deadly version later on in life?
Fingers crossed for a vaccine by the end of the year.
The number of people with permanent heart damage is almost 100% of those hospitalized and what the article says is 18% to 19% of those hospitalized will have possible permanent heart damage, when figuring from there the number drops to 11-12 million. The other thing this article fails on is the asymptomatic maybe far greater than previously thought. Testing has already shown more people have it, but didn't require hospitalization.
I don't plan to die just to become a one percenter.
The numbers need revising since the percentage was of those who were hospitalized
11,224,440 people with permanent heart damage.
6,235,800 people with permanent lung damage.
1,870,740 people with strokes.
1,247,160 people with muscle weakness.
1,247,160 people with loss of cognitive function.
This is all making the assumption that the the ones hospitalized will total 62,358,000 and right now with more cases the hospitalization rate is not matching the increased rate of cases, so as of right now all those numbers will continue to be revised downward even the death rate.
Of course the numbers don't reflect the physical, mental anguish, and emotional damage and stress being done to millions of people who have lost their jobs, homes, saving, and hope for the future.
Isolate the elderly and infirm, and let the rest of the population mingle. What is the death rate of Covid-19 compared to the seasonal flu?
Actually, the nightmare question is what will the death rate of Covid 19 PLUS the seasonal flu look like?
That may be true, but unfortunately we lose tens of thousands of Americans to the flu every year...and there is a vaccine for it.
Yes it IS true
In less than 6 months there have been over 142,000 deaths from Covid. The average number of deaths in the US from ALL causes is 331. The average number of Covid deaths since the first case in the US is 922.
[deleted]
It looks like they are adding them together and presenting them all as Covid 19.
Florida admitted counting a man killed in a motorcycle accident the other day as a covid death
It does? Link?
You don't need a link, all it takes is common sense and paying attention to whats being reported. I remember 3 months ago some know it all's predicting the death rate of COVID19 and now it still hasn't reached their hyper inflated death percentages, it is sill below 1% even with fake deaths figured in.
Yep...sure am.
You, however, are rambling.
No one said anything about "all other" deaths. I was speaking of flu deaths in the US WITH a vaccine compared to a flu like disease with NO vaccine.
Maybe you can try [again.]
[deleted]
And that right there is what some libs do not have.
Vaccination rate for the flu is between 45% for adults to 60% for children. The Vaccine is about 40% effective.
Flu deaths were probably 60,000 or 70,000 for the entire year. Hospitalizations were about 30,000.
So many are sure about what they don't know.
5 sentences too much to digest?
You are aware that the 331 average deaths per day INCLUDE flu deaths right bugs?
No need.
Who the fuck is this 'us' you pretend to speak for?
Now there's this:
One really fascinating case comes from Mexico. A woman gave birth to triplets and they all tested positive. Mom, dad, and family members were tested and none of them had CV. The last I heard, two of the three babies were okay and the other was in guarded condition but all of them are expected to recover.
That may connect to this case:
Tested negative but her doctor is positive that she has Covid based on her CT scan.
So as in the case with the nurse, maybe the mom had it although testing negative and passed it to the babies. Great link, thank you.
I had a fear of many false negatives because of how the test is conducted. That swab has to go all the way up your nose almost to your brain. A nurse described it to me...if you don't tear up, it wasn't done properly and has to be done again.
They are now relying on people to do their own sample collection. Some (and I count myself amongst the some) won't get that swab up there far enough before I give up or say good enough for government work
I had it done since Matt and I were feeling lousy and we had to take care of Matt's dad who is 92. I have to tell you, that test is nasty. It really does feel like they are trying to reach your brain.
I had it done because I had to go to the hospital for an endoscopy to make sure I didn't have it, my test was negative and it's been almost a month. Yes, it was not a pleasant experience
Oh, hell...Mr Giggles has to go in next Friday for a colonoscopy...that means he needs to get a CV test STAT!
My 12 year old son had a CV test done because he had to have a minor procedure. It was negative, but I wouldn't expect anything else since he's been home since mid-March. He said, "Mom, that sucked."
Not only did my eyes tear, but I had a sneezing fit after.
I believe it. I've only ever had a flu test done and it left me sneezing and coughing. And I was already sick
Yes, those are valid projections based on available evidence. But according to what we have been told by authoritarian experts those numbers are anecdotal and cannot be trusted. The expert opinions presented to the pubic have confirmed that little is known about the SARS-CoV-2 virus or the COVID-19 disease. While the empirical evidence provides facts, the expert opinion has been that the facts obtained from practical experience does not provide knowledge. We have facts but we do not know what those facts mean; that's what the public has been told.
From the beginning, guidance provided by medical experts and governments have focused attention on the public protecting themselves. Social distancing, face coverings, personal hygiene, and using disinfectants was touted as means to prevent becoming infected. The original guidance wasn't about controlling spread of the virus. Someone following those guidelines are protected and need not worry about the virus spreading. Governments assumed responsibility for controlling spread of the virus through efforts to disinfect public spaces, through public testing, and through mandates to prohibit public gathering and interaction. Originally the public was not involved in efforts to control spread of the virus; the public's role was to protect themselves.
The evidence shows that governments have not been able to control spread of the virus. And now governments are imposing harsher mandates to accomplish what those governments failed to do. According to the original guidance the public can protect itself by social distancing, wearing face coverings, personal hygiene, and using disinfectants. The public need not be involved in controlling spread of the virus because following the medical guidance provides protection.
What the evidence clearly shows is that the provided expert medical advice and guidance for responding to the pandemic has been wrong from the beginning. Governments cannot control spread of the virus; only the pubic can control spread of the virus. Social distancing, face coverings, personal hygiene, and using disinfectants provide little assurance of protection as the increasing number of infections indicate. However, instead of admitting the the expert guidance was the wrong approach, the authoritarian experts are making greater demands for harsher government mandates and more intrusive restrictions. We are killing our economy to protect the authority of experts because they screwed up at the beginning of the response.
The purpose of face coverings is to greatly reduce or prevent releasing the virus into the air and allowing the virus to spread. But, even now, people will cite the original guidance to 'prove' that claim is incorrect and that the purpose of face coverings is to protect yourself. The authoritarian experts have drilled the idea of protection into the public psyche so now it's too late to change course. The response to the pandemic was doomed from the beginning because authoritarian experts thought they were in charge and chose to use their authority to impose restrictions on the public rather than involve the public in the effort. And those same authoritarian experts do not possess the humility to admit they screwed up and ask for the public's help.
The public is depending upon governments to control spread of the virus. But that is beyond the capability of governments and expert advisors. Protecting the authoritarian status of expert advisors in society has damaged the economy, adversely impacted the public's lifestyle, and hasn't controlled spread of the virus. And more fear mongering to justify expert advisor's demands for harsher, more restrictive government intervention won't improve the situation.
The seeded article claims that allowing everyone to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 would kill the economy. That may or may not be true; it's a guess based upon extrapolation of available anecdotal evidence. But that anecdotal evidence also clearly shows that relying upon governments and expert advisors to control spread of the virus has (not will) kill the economy. And the anecdotal evidence suggests that harsh intervention does not prevent spread of the virus. The claims made in the seed are really about justifying an authoritarian approach by governments to control spread of the virus. That authoritarian approach hasn't worked, so far, and the evidence suggests that more of the same will also be inadequate in controlling spread of the virus.
At this point we need humility from expert advisors. The hubris of expert advisors hasn't worked and more hubris likely will only make matters worse.
What YUGE load of blather.
I won't waste my time debunking your comment, I'll rely on members to recognize it's BS for themselves.
The authoritarian approach has failed; the numbers speak for themselves.
I won't waste my time debunking your comment, I'll rely on members to recognize it's BS for themselves.
Speaking of a load of blather, if you won't take the time to debunk it, it means you' don't have any facts to debunk it.
No, it means just what I said.
It would be a waste of my time and I'm pretty damn sure that most members already know the facts and therefore will take his comment for what it's worth, little to nothing.
Actually, where shutdowns and CDC guidelines were followed they have bent the curve and they are moving in the right direction to controlled openings. Where they didn't, the numbers are surging and they are backtracking.
Oh and YES, the numbers do speak for themselves, you're just not listening and neither are morons like DeSantis.
BTW, now that you've proven that you have the ability to communicate in less than monologue form, I'm sure there are many here that would appreciate that you continue the practice. I know I would.
Where would this be? Please inform us with your vast knowledge.
Authoritarian: adjective - favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
Authoritative: adjective - able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.
I think what most conservatives are mistaking for "authoritarian" is actually just "authoritative".
No. The public has been told that we have some facts and those facts require decisive action, but we're also still gathering more data to allow us to make the best decisions. The few things we know so far is that masks and social distancing does help, but as to how much it helps it's debatable and certainly not fool proof.
What would really help would be all Americans agreeing that this pandemic is real. Sadly, in many conservative areas there is a bullshit narrative that this is all some hoax. That erroneous belief literally puts American lives at risk, but for some reason many conservatives have latched on to fantasy conspiracy theories simply because they don't want to have to put in the effort to prevent mass infection. They're too fucking lazy to admit they're wrong even though we have over 140,000 Americans who have paid the ultimate price for their inaction and misinformation.
New York has been experiencing 500 to 1000 new infections every day for the last 60 days. That's 30,000 to 60,000 new infections since Gov. Cuomo declared victory. Yes, New York flattened the curve so hospitals aren't being overwhelmed. But New York's authoritarian approach hasn't stopped spread of the virus, either. In fact, the early spike in infections may have actually helped control spread of the virus since a significant portion of the population now has some level of immunity.
Keep in mind that New York's numbers look better because testing wasn't as available or accessible during New York's outbreak. Remember Gov. Cuomo complaining about limited availability of testing? It's quite possible that a large number of asymptomatic infections simply were not detected during New York's outbreak.
If you choose to emulate Donald Trump's style of communication, that's your prerogative. But expecting others to emulate Trump is rather asinine.
Please post a link in which Gov. Cuomo 'declared victory'.
There is NO stopping the virus until a vaccine is found. Flattening the curve is all we can do and NY accomplished that with what you call an 'authoritative approach'.
Oh and BTFW, if what NY did failed, WHY are most of the hot spots taking a page out of their playbook?
So your posit is that MORE testing documents LESS cases?
You must have read my comment wrong. I'm suggesting that YOU emulate the minimalist style that YOU proved capable of.
I think that you meant that reply for Nerm.
The virus won't be stopped until herd immunity is achieved. Availability of a vaccine doesn't guarantee the virus will be stopped.
Where did that pretzel logic come from?
If you wish to emulate Donald Trump's communication style, that's your prerogative.
The US had at LEAST 44 MILLION cases of H1N1 [Swine flu] and it STILL hasn't been stopped. H1N1 remains one of the strains included in the annual flu vaccine.
Nothing does, which is why YOUR criteria of 'stopping' the virus is disingenuous.
From your comment, which isn't logical at all.
Do you think that repeating the same deflection over and over makes it less deflective?
H1N1 influenza continues within the population because herd immunity cannot be established. And face coverings (used during the 1918 pandemic and commonly used elsewhere) have proven to provide little protection against H1N1 influenza. The purpose of wide spread use of face coverings to reduce or eliminate spread of the virus by infected individuals.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus may not be stoppable, just as with H1N1 influenza. Yet, expert advisors have been touting some 'magic bullets' instead of preparing the population to live with the virus. Dr. Fauci has made remarks that the economy should be severely restricted until a vaccine is available. But there isn't any guarantee that a vaccine will provide herd immunity.
Expert guidance has been directed toward restricting lifestyles until a magic bullet can be developed. Those same expert advisors inform us that the duration of immunity is unknown; the virus may behave as a seasonal virus like influenza. There may not be a magic bullet for the coronavirus. But according to expert guidance for government intervention that would mean restrictions on lifestyles would become permanent.
The pretzel logic you presented was that MORE testing documents LESS cases. Which has nothing to do with what I wrote. Your rebuttal is irrational, attempts to twist what I wrote into a pretzel, and you cannot support that pretzel logic.
What I wrote is that Gov. Cuomo complained about inadequate testing which means asymptomatic infections were not be documented. More people were infected than the official count indicates. What I wrote is that LESS testing documents LESS cases.
Since it is now known that some immunity is developed (but not how long that immunity lasts), an increasing number of undocumented infections will also flatten the curve. Increasing numbers of infections progresses toward herd immunity, whether or not those infections are documented. As the virus spreads the population will eventually achieve herd immunity which flattens the curve. Since the actual number of infections in New York has not been documented, we really don't know how effective the government restriction on lifestyles has been.
You're the one wanting to emulate Trump's style of communication.
Yet YOU insisted, without anything to support your proclamation, that it CAN be established for Covid 19.
Actually you cited current cases, which are exponentially LESS than they were in NY when you insist they had LESS testing.
The numbers you documented illustrates is that MORE tests is documenting LESS cases.
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KIbMnayxVfdgQATmNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1595292762/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.healthline.com%2fhealth%2fherd-immunity/RK=2/RS=Sbj74BddUwP6eFZjpKxOzIIZcRg-
What Is Herd Immunity and Could It Help Prevent COVID-19?
Some leaders — for example, Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the United Kingdom — suggested it might be a good way to stop or control the spread of the new coronavirus, which causes COVID-19. Herd immunity is also called community immunity and herd or group protection.
Herd immunity happens when so many people in a community become immune to an infectious disease that it stops the disease from spreading.
This can happen in two ways:
Herd immunity can work against the spread of some diseases. There are several reasons why it often works.
There are also many reasons why herd immunity won’t yet work to stop or slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, the disease caused by an infection of the new coronavirus.
When a large percentage of the population becomes immune to a disease, the spread of that disease slows down or stops.
Many viral and bacterial infections spread from person to person. This chain is broken when most people don’t get or transmit the infection.
This helps protect people who aren’t vaccinated or who have low functioning immune systems and may develop an infection more easily, such as:
For some diseases, herd immunity can go into effect when 40 percent of the people in a population become immune to the disease, such as through vaccination. But in most cases, 80 to 95 percent of the population must be immune to the disease to stop its spread.
For example, 19 out of every 20 people must have the measles vaccination for herd immunity to go into effect and stop the disease. This means that if a child gets measles, everyone else in this population around them will most likely have been vaccinated, already have formed antibodies, and be immune to the disease to prevent it from spreading further.
The goal of herd immunity is to prevent others from catching or spreading an infectious disease like measles.
However, if there are more unvaccinated people around the child with measles, the disease could spread more easily because there is no herd immunity.
To visualize this, picture someone without immunity as a red dot surrounded by yellow immune dots. If the red dot can’t connect to any other red dots, there is herd immunity.
The percentage of people that must have immunity to safely slow or stop an infectious disease is called the “herd immunity threshold.”
Natural immunity occurs when you become immune to a specific disease after contracting it. This triggers your immune system to make antibodies against the germ causing the infection inside of you. Antibodies are like special bodyguards that only recognize certain germs.
If you contract it again, the antibodies that dealt with the germ before can attack it before it spreads and makes you ill. For example, if you had chickenpox as a child, you most likely won’t get it again, even if you’re around someone with it.
Natural immunity can help create herd immunity, but it doesn’t work as well as vaccinations. There are several reasons for this:
Herd immunity does work for some illnesses. People in Norway successfully developed at least partial herd immunity to the H1N1 virus ( swine flu ) through vaccinations and natural immunity.
Similarly, in Norway, influenza was projected to cause fewer deaths in 2010 and 2011 because more of the population was immune to it.
Herd immunity can help stop the spread of illness, such as swine flu, and other pandemics within an entire country. But it can change without anyone knowing. Also, it doesn’t always guarantee protection against any disease.
For most healthy people, herd immunity isn’t a good alternative to getting vaccinated.
Not every illness that has a vaccine can be stopped by herd immunity. For example, you can contract tetanus from bacteria in your environment. You don’t contract it from someone else, so herd immunity doesn’t work for this infection. Getting the vaccine is the only protection.
You can help build herd immunity to certain diseases in your community by making sure you and your family have up-to-date vaccinations. Herd immunity may not always protect every individual in the community, but it could help prevent widespread disease.
Social distancing and frequent handwashing are currently the only ways to help prevent you and those around you from contracting and potentially spreading SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.
There are several reasons why herd immunity isn’t the answer to stopping the spread of the new coronavirus:
Scientists are currently working on a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. If we have a vaccine, we may be able to develop herd immunity against this virus in the future. This would mean getting the SARS-CoV-2 in specific doses and making sure the majority of the world’s population is vaccinated.
Almost all healthy adults, teens, and older children would need to be vaccinated to provide herd immunity for people who can’t get the vaccine or who are too ill to become naturally immune to it.
If you’re vaccinated and build immunity against SARS-CoV-2, you most likely wouldn’t contract the virus or transmit it.
Herd immunity is community or group protection that happens when a critical number of the population is immune to a certain disease. It can help stop or slow the spread of an infectious disease like measles or swine flu.
The safest way to get immunity is through vaccination. You can also get natural immunity by contracting the illness and building an immune response to it.
Herd immunity isn’t the answer to stopping the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the new coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Once a vaccine is developed for this virus, establishing herd immunity is one way to help protect people in the community who are vulnerable or have low functioning immune systems.
Herd immunity is not the way to go with Co-Vid 19.
Available information indicates that infected individuals do develop immunity. That's why plasma from infected individuals is being used as a treatment. That is why tests for immunity have been deployed. But the expert opinion is that the duration of immunity is unknown. If developed immunity is long lasting then herd immunity is achievable. However, if immunity fades over time then SARS-CoV-2 will behave like seasonal influenza and won't be stopped by herd immunity.
Herd immunity can be achieved during an influenza outbreak. However, since the immunity is temporary, outbreaks can recur in the future. That's why the population has had to learn to live with influenza rather than rely on government interventions to restrict lifestyles during an outbreak. We've simply had to accept that a number of people will die from influenza each year.
Slathering mustard on that pretzel logic won't hide the pretzel. Your pooch will likely grow tired of being screwed.
Keep in mind that the need for income establishes an incentive to avoid testing. The public is more aware now that an infection cannot be treated. And the public is more aware now that there is a good chance that an infection will not cause severe symptoms. So, the decision is about loss of income compared to risk of severity.
Also keep in mind that the manner of testing can also spread the virus. We know people who are infected are showing up at testing stations since positive test results are documented. Those infected individuals are releasing virus into the air at the testing station. The way testing is being performed using public testing stations is the opposite of isolating infected individuals.
What you are pretzeling about, trying to emulate Trump, is the rate of infection documented by testing. However, the test only detects an active infection. The test cannot determine if someone has been previously infected or if someone is still at risk of infection. After six months of the virus spreading through the population, the documented rate of infection really doesn't provide useful information beyond providing documentation for the number of detected infections. Previously infected individuals will test negative, too.
The available test cannot indicate if an infected individual will spread the virus as a super spreader. With the lack of available treatments, a positive test result only means the individual must isolate themselves so they can't work, can't shop for essentials, and can't maintain social contacts. Effective face coverings that eliminate release of the virus into the air would avoid the need for strict isolation; the face covering provides the isolation. With availability of effective face coverings there wouldn't be as great a need for restrictive government intervention. But that's not what the expert advisors are telling the pubic. The government hasn't been involved in developing or distributing effective face coverings; that's been left to the public and private sector.
The purpose of a vaccine is to achieve herd immunity. That's why Dr. Anthony Fauci has been explaining the urgent need for a vaccine. That's also why Dr. Fauci has been touting the rapid development of candidate vaccines.
According to the expert advisors, herd immunity is the only way to go. The expert advisors are pursuing artificially achieved herd immunity using vaccines rather than natural herd immunity achieved from infections.
Whatever
Natural herd immunity is impossible if no one actually acquires an immunity to CV once they've become infected.
Agreed and they STILL don't know yet if there's going to be long-term damage and chronic issues because of it.
It's still very early in testing:
Coronavirus research updates: Antiviral antibodies peter out within weeks after infection
How Long Does COVID-19 Immunity Last?
All of that is bullshit Nerm.
MOST of the 'available information indicates that individuals' have contracted Covid 19 AFTER already testing positive, recovering and testing negative.
Secondly, plasma treatment is used because it contains anti-bodies, NOT immunity.
Third and finally, there are NO 'tests for immunity' there are tests for anti-bodies and they are notoriously unreliable.
The Coronavirus is NOT influenza so your comment is irrelevant.
That statement merely proves that you were being disingenuous when you insisted that any attempts at mitigation are failures unless they 'stop the spread' or 'stop the illness' ? Unless of course you expect me to accept that your fluctuating standards constitute credibility. I don't. Especially since you harp about 'herd immunity' and then admit that 'immunity is temporary'.
I wonder if you've noted that the longer you try to defend your comment son an issue, the more you end up contradicting yourself?
That's true. However, available information indicates that infected individuals do develop immunity. That's why plasma is being used as a treatment. The unanswered question is how long that immunity lasts.
Where is this available information? You can't just throw something out there and not expect to be asked to back it up
You seem to have an abundant supply of pretzels. But your mustard jar must be running low. Maybe trying to emulate Trump isn't such a good idea.
No, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not the H1N1 virus which only states the obvious. However, both are viral pathogens that cause respiratory symptoms. And both viruses spread in the same manner.
Your attempt at relevancy is just another irrelevant pretzel. Are you sure you want to continue emulating Trump?
The number of infections continue to increase no matter how restrictive the government interventions have been. As I pointed out, New York has seen 30,000 to 60,000 detected new infections since starting to reopen two months ago. The government interventions haven't stop spread of the virus. The pretzel makers are trying to call that a success.
Distribution of effective face coverings would have achieved the same result without destroying the economy.
Why do I need to be your DuckDuckGo? You're on the internet, look it up. Are you trying to emulate Trump, too?
I wasn't real busy so here ya go......
"Plasma contains many other important components, like antibodies. Antibodies help your body fight infections. People who have recovered from the disease have COVID-19 antibodies in their plasma and may be able to help others with coronavirus by donating their plasma"
That's not how this works. If I claimed something and someone called me out on it, I would either admit I made it up or go find the sourced information.
[deleted]
I repeat Dulay's statement.
Yes, I know they're calling for recoverees to donate their plasma but it's not to confer immunity on anyone or even determine if people are acquiring any kind of immunity
"Antibodies help your body fight infections."
Didn't say it was a cure. Only that it introduces antibodies which could attack the virus. If the donated plasma has the antibodies that helped cure the donor, then there is a possibility it could aid the recipient.
Nerm,
NY keeps getting new cases for two reasons. 1. People are not following guidelines and 2. We are attempting to try and open up, which means more interactions. For instance, there was almost no social distancing in the mall when I went there last week. It will be the last time I go. I also went into a beer distributor and none of the staff was wearing masks. I will not be going back there again either.
The key words are could and maybe. But thanks for the link.
Convalescent plasma therapy -- Mayo Clinic
Yes, having to supply info found in 2 seconds does indicate that whoever is trying to make pretzels is just lazy. You want me to send a jar of mustard, too?
It's a hell of lot better than just laying there hoping for something to come along. And you're welcome........although I should have known there would be a "yeah but".
[removed ,] Nerm. You're the one that needs the economy size bottle of mustard
The but came after I talked about could and maybe. There's no yeah...but in my comment.
You're twisting your knickers and nobody did anything to you
Yes, people are not following guidelines. That's the point I've been making.
From the beginning the expert advice and guidelines focused on personal protection. Social distancing, testing, and government restrictions have focused attention on personal protection. The message from expert advisors has been to comply with government guidelines and restrictions or you risk death. Governments, following expert advice, are responsible for controlling spread of the virus; the public is responsible for protecting itself.
But we know the pubic is the source of the virus. The virus doesn't hop around like fleas infecting people. So, the public is responsible for controlling spread of the virus; not the government.
Expert advisors engaged in fear mongering to elicit compliance with government imposed restrictions. That was a serious mistake. The response to the pandemic was doomed from the beginning because expert advisors believed they were in charge and could control spread of the virus through an authoritarian approach. The expert advisors haven't been asking the public to help control spread of the virus; the expert advisors have been demanding the public comply with government imposed restrictions to control spread of the virus.
Exactly. She does the exact same thing when I hit her with facts. She doesn't debunk, she simply insults.
The devolution of your comments prove that you find yourself incapable of refuting the points that I made.
Your comment lacks all credibility.
Are you sure you want to keep wasting your time trying to dump that BS on me?
Try to absorb the nuance of that data.
60,000 cases in two months in NY is a DECREASE in the rate of the rise in the number of cases. There are handy dandy charts if you are a more visual person.
Yes they have and you admitted as much when you stated that NY flattened the curve.
Flattening the curve IS a success when the alternative is tens of thousands more infections and thousands more dead.
From the very beginning, there was a shortage of 'effective face coverings' until the CDC devolved their 'guidance' to bandannas. Trump didn't use the DPA until April. 60+ days of dithering. Now there are shortages of PPE AGAIN and Trump is talking about shower heads and the stars and bars.
People can't GIVE away face masks to the virus deniers. They refuse them and won't wear them. We can thank Trump for motivating much of that refusal.
I defer to you as I can't see what he posted.
Great find!
Unfortunately for YOU, it doesn't support your BS about IMMUNITY but does support my comment about anti-bodies.
Well done.