clutch

This was a good watch: "How Hong Kong beat coronavirus and avoided lockdown" You realize that almost every single measure taken by the people and the government would not be possible in the US...

I wanna see Dalal's grocery breakdown now. ;D

Thanks for sharing your story. This was a pleasure to read... a rare diamond in the rough for this forum these days. :)

Again, simplifying the situation. Yes, it slows down transmission. But then what? Should we be in the lockdown until a vaccine is developed? That could be anywhere between 18 months to forever, based on the initial estimation of experts. Then there are countries like S. Korea, where they never had any lockdown as we have it here or in Europe. Yet, they kept the virus under control. I think that's a strong sign that there are other much more effective measures than the lockdown. To some effect yes. The fact is that there's a killer virus going around. It spreads and kills. Doesn't care about what you think, how you feel, how you vote. It does not give a fuck. So reality has suddenly changed. There is no normal anymore. The virus looks at the normal and laughs. So effectively there are two options: a soft lockdown - which you're not gonna like, or a hard lockdown - which you're really not gonna like. Normal isn't on the list. A soft lockdown is basically the South Korea model. Masks, sanitizer, social distancing, huge test and trace. You don't get to pack bars and do whatever you like. Life isn't normal. SK thought they could do more normal, opened clubs, had one superspreader event and was like "that's it, no more clubs". If you don't want the soft lockdown you get the hard lockdown. That's the problem with America. It is not responsible enough to go through a soft lockdown because they are "special" so they want normal. Well you can't have normal. It's interesting that places that had bad outbreaks in the north east are not seeing pops. I don't know why, but maybe they were scared enough by what happened that they really want to go with the soft lockdown. Whereas other places that didn't partake in the carnage are not at that point yet. Just to let you know, all those things you mentioned regarding S. Korea help, but the most effective measure that S. Korea was able to take was put those infected in a hospital and won't release you until you test negative. Yes, you heard that right. They don't just ask you to self-quarantine at home for two weeks. Now they are debating whether they should not hospitalize those who test positive but show only mild symptoms. In China, I believe that they do something similar, or put you in a house arrest. With this kind of measure in place, you can let people go to work, dine at restaurants, go to schools, etc. and manage the transmission... Now you can ask, why can't the US do this? Well, I'd say two main things are: 1) their health care system is not designed for that kind of measure (fewer hospital beds, cost/insurance issues), and 2) many people will not abide by that kind of "hard" quarantine measures. Some people might not even get tested because they don't want to get locked in a hospital. What could Trump have done to fix these things? (I don't want to defend him, but just being realistic here) So my feeling is... No matter what the US politicians could have done, you wouldn't have been able to stop this virus. Especially given its size, connections with the rest of the world, and the two points above, etc.. There are inherent reasons why the spread could not be stopped. You could wish and vent all you want how the US admin. could have prevented this crisis, but in reality, I don't think it was possible. You are right, this virus doesn't give a fuck, and you might just have to see it run its course. So basically almost every developed country and most developing countries were able to get their outbreak under some sort of control but the almighty US can't do anything? As I've said. you get soft lockdown or hard lockdown. There is no option C. You don't like or can't fathom option A, well then... option B it is. Again, look at the daily death rate or cases/test ratio. It's not really exploding... And you are missing my point... I'm saying that it's not as simple as soft lockdown vs. hard lockdown. S. Korea did a soft lockdown but together with putting every infected person into a hospital. It's not whether people like it or not, but the US simply cannot afford to take that kind of approach.

Again, simplifying the situation. Yes, it slows down transmission. But then what? Should we be in the lockdown until a vaccine is developed? That could be anywhere between 18 months to forever, based on the initial estimation of experts. Then there are countries like S. Korea, where they never had any lockdown as we have it here or in Europe. Yet, they kept the virus under control. I think that's a strong sign that there are other much more effective measures than the lockdown. To some effect yes. The fact is that there's a killer virus going around. It spreads and kills. Doesn't care about what you think, how you feel, how you vote. It does not give a fuck. So reality has suddenly changed. There is no normal anymore. The virus looks at the normal and laughs. So effectively there are two options: a soft lockdown - which you're not gonna like, or a hard lockdown - which you're really not gonna like. Normal isn't on the list. A soft lockdown is basically the South Korea model. Masks, sanitizer, social distancing, huge test and trace. You don't get to pack bars and do whatever you like. Life isn't normal. SK thought they could do more normal, opened clubs, had one superspreader event and was like "that's it, no more clubs". If you don't want the soft lockdown you get the hard lockdown. That's the problem with America. It is not responsible enough to go through a soft lockdown because they are "special" so they want normal. Well you can't have normal. It's interesting that places that had bad outbreaks in the north east are not seeing pops. I don't know why, but maybe they were scared enough by what happened that they really want to go with the soft lockdown. Whereas other places that didn't partake in the carnage are not at that point yet. Just to let you know, all those things you mentioned regarding S. Korea help, but the most effective measure that S. Korea was able to take was put those infected in a hospital and won't release you until you test negative. Yes, you heard that right. They don't just ask you to self-quarantine at home for two weeks. Now they are debating whether they should not hospitalize those who test positive but show only mild symptoms. In China, I believe that they do something similar, or put you in a house arrest. With this kind of measure in place, you can let people go to work, dine at restaurants, go to schools, etc. and manage the transmission... Now you can ask, why can't the US do this? Well, I'd say two main things are: 1) their health care system is not designed for that kind of measure (fewer hospital beds, cost/insurance issues), and 2) many people will not abide by that kind of "hard" quarantine measures. Some people might not even get tested because they don't want to get locked in a hospital. What could Trump have done to fix these things? (I don't want to defend him, but just being realistic here) So my feeling is... No matter what the US politicians could have done, you wouldn't have been able to stop this virus. Especially given its size, connections with the rest of the world, and the two points above, etc.. There are inherent reasons why the spread could not be stopped. You could wish and vent all you want how the US admin. could have prevented this crisis, but in reality, I don't think it was possible. You are right, this virus doesn't give a fuck, and you might just have to see it run its course.

Lockdowns are put in place to prevent people from gathering. Protests involve people gathering. Hence, it defeats the purpose of the lockdown. Yet, it seems to have no effect on virus transmission. Just remove your political lense and see what you are saying here! (I guess the solution is the put the lockdown in place but allow all the protests!) ::)

You are just making a fool out of yourself... You are just supporting the argument that lockdowns might not be effective...LOL

Again, simplifying the situation. Yes, it slows down transmission. But then what? Should we be in the lockdown until a vaccine is developed? That could be anywhere between 18 months to forever, based on the initial estimation of experts. Then there are countries like S. Korea, where they never had any lockdown as we have it here or in Europe. Yet, they kept the virus under control. I think that's a strong sign that there are other much more effective measures than the lockdown. LMAO! Ladies and gents, it's thinking like this which is the reason why the U.S. is the outlier on this graph: Science is hard! Ignore the warnings of doctors and epidemiologists and go with Joe Sixpack's gut! We'll do the same with climate change because America is Special and science does not apply here! FYI, here's some places inside the U.S. that used lockdowns with phased reopenings and oh btw had a lot of protests in early June too (note the resemblance with developed countries that did the same): See Reply #6411. Also, look at the daily death numbers yourself and see if you see such an outlier. And, you just continue to demonstrate the tendency to blind yourself with your political bias and inability to get the nuance of the points that I'm making. I never said the lockdown doesn't work. Did I suggest that lifting the lockdown is a good idea? My whole point was that simply saying that "the lockdown is a clear solution" is an oversimplification. It's like saying "banning all cars is a clear solution to eliminate deaths by car accidents". What's your answer for when should we lift the lockdown? Until the cases drop to 0? Until a vaccine is developed? Why are we not asking these questions to people who are pro-lockdown?

Again, simplifying the situation. Yes, it slows down transmission. But then what? Should we be in the lockdown until a vaccine is developed? That could be anywhere between 18 months to forever, based on the initial estimation of experts. Then there are countries like S. Korea, where they never had any lockdown as we have it here or in Europe. Yet, they kept the virus under control. I think that's a strong sign that there are other much more effective measures than the lockdown.

Here is what I hope everyone is starting to understand (and I'm seeing some signs, sort of). This situation is so complex with a lot of uncertainties, not a single stat, or a chart can be used to fully explain what's going on. Yet, if you have a political lense, every data point can be interpreted to support your narrative. It's just completely unproductive but this seems to be the norm in many media outlets.

I don't thinks its doom and gloom with the increased cases. They are just doing more testing, which is what everyone wanted.

I'd be surprised if Liberty has it just because it's a chart from a third-party. That said, it's pretty easy to visualize because the EU has about the population of the USA, plus a third. So, keep the same line from the EU, and move the USA line up a third. That said, I agree with your underlying point--the chart is a bit deceptive because, compared to the EU, USA has actually done even worse than you'd think just by looking at the chart. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-deaths-covid-19?time=2020-03-02..&country=USA~European%20Union You can edit the chart to select the start-end dates, etc. It's not a seven day rolling average though AFAIK. If you see this chart, you don't see the same spike of deaths in US as with cases. Could it simply be that they are doing more tests?

Do you have the same chart but with deaths or deaths per million?

doubled my BRK.B position

Maybe not a charlatan, but he is a hypocrite. He broke the lockdown rules himself to be with his lover. A definition of a limousine liberal?

I can't help but think that we are going to have very similar discussions regarding climate change in the near future. We will rely on prediction models that have no proof for causations (only correlations), no scientific validation (only based on incomplete data) and a ridiculously huge range of outcomes to make draconian decisions like a lockdown -- in this case, a "lockdown" of activities to prevent CO2 emissions. People will say: "we have to do this for the worst-case scenario". Well, if that's your reasoning then you are not making a scientific decision. Just another version of Pascal's wager. Just like people have abused religions and socialism to suppress freedom in the past, they will again do the same this time with science. Note that I'm not discrediting science here -- but it's when people misuse/abuse the tool, the great danger arises.

There is steep competition, but this might be the stupidest thing* posted on this thread. You've heard "correlation != causation"? Ignoring the fairly week correlation, wouldn't the simplest explanation be that countries with the most deaths are likely to lockdown the hardest? The clear outliers on this chart are the countries who were hit hard and DID NOT lockdown (US, UK, Sweden). He didn't say causation, but you are the one who is implying that there is causation (more deaths -> harder lockdowns)...?

As a Canadian, I have no desire at all to defend the buffoon. But the alternative I see (not just Biden, but what the Democrats/Left are doing) looks even more absurd. I suspect that this would be the primary reason why Trump might still be re-elected.

Excusing protesters because they wear masks while gathering in masses: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." And I have seen the protesters first hand in Toronto, and no, not everyone wears a mask and they often pull them down especially when they talk.

The age factor is particularly salient due to his perceived risk of Covid at an old age.

I won't engage in your bad faith arguments. I never said masks and hand sanitizer make mass protests safe. Ok, back to good faith argument -- I remember you saying that millions potentially dying of COVID is horrible. These protests, while intended for a good cause, surely increases the chance of more people dying due to COVID. So how do you weigh the balance? In general, is this how the left in the US weigh things? (based on my observations) Systematic racism > Public health > Economy and freedom

The protesters seem to be wearing masks and using hand sanitizer, so not sure what your point is. Why not open up everything then? We can all wear masks and use hand sanitizer just like the protesters and it would be safe!

Hindsight is 20/20, but here is how a Canadian city has prevented outbreaks/deaths at long term care homes. With an early focus on seniors’ residences, Kingston has so far avoided the brunt of COVID-19 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-with-an-early-focus-on-seniors-residences-kingston-has-so-far/ 'In the early days of the pandemic, health experts say, government leaders across Canada worried about averting a catastrophe in this country’s hospitals, similar to what had happened in Italy and New York. They focused most of their attention on expanding the number of available hospital beds in anticipation of an influx of patients with COVID-19. Kingston stands out because its pandemic planning addressed the frail elderly as well as hospitals by including measures to protect the health of residents in the broader community from the highly contagious virus, including the 2,600 residents in seniors’ homes. ... "I don’t want to criticize decision makers in health care, but the tendency is to focus everything on acute care and the community is a bit of a second thought,“ Ms. Szabo said.'

None of that trumps (no pun intended) ending racism!!

I wonder if any health official would risk their career to criticize the protests? In some sense I am glad that this shows you that so called "public health" is not the absolute priority and human rights (and freedom) can be more important... Someone should ask Cuomo: "are these protests better than death?"