Liberty

And let us know when you cure cancer and win an Emmy, while we're making random stuff up for each other to do.

I don't think this tool does what you think it does.

Pretty sure Buffett and his friend Bill Gates don't think about this in soundbytes like you do and take very seriously all the best practices for pandemics from those who have been studying them their whole lives. In fact, logic would lead one to think that those most worried about the economic impacts of this would be the loudest voices decrying lack of preparation and competence and asking for the biggest investments in future preparations. The costs of pandemics are so high that doing things properly, and even over-reacting early on, pays for itself a zillion times over. So you are saying, as opposed to Cherzeca - that this "One size fits all" approach is the correct one. No other alternatives? What's right for NYC is right for Wyoming, etc? You are saying we know where the herd immunity may stand? The data they are stuffing in their models are known facts? They've not been offset the impact of this drastic increase in hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing prevention? We know this thing is lethal for the immune compromised and the elderly - but so will be a depression. No, I'm not saying what you're saying I'm saying.

If you could catch HIV with a handshake or by touching a doorknob, you can be sure we'd have had a shutdown. I don't think the model suggests "eradication", but certainly exponential decline if social distancing measures are maintained through may, after which you have to do "the dance" as described here to prevent a resurgence: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-the-hammer-and-the-dance-be9337092b56 http://www.healthdata.org/covid/faqs

Pretty sure Buffett and his friend Bill Gates don't think about this in soundbytes like you do and take very seriously all the best practices for pandemics from those who have been studying them their whole lives. In fact, logic would lead one to think that those most worried about the economic impacts of this would be the loudest voices decrying lack of preparation and competence and asking for the biggest investments in future preparations. The costs of pandemics are so high that doing things properly, and even over-reacting early on, pays for itself a zillion times over.

There's always anomalies. You don't know in real time what's going on, is it luck, will they have a problem later, do they have other measures and social norms that compensated (places that don't shake hands and commonly wear masks when sick)? You certainly don't cherry pick one place and hope to be them while having very different circumstances. Wishful thinking isn't a strategy. And didn't I just see they're shutting down Tokyo somewhere else? I explained upthread some of what Italy did wrong, which is similar to the US actions. You are looking at this as if there was a single variable, but life's more complex and messy than that.

Peter Attia podcast, Q&A with his daughter about the situation from a kid's point of view: https://peterattiamd.com/covid-19-for-kids/

I dont know what that means. But is that your best answer why millions should loose their jobs? Also I am hearing yesterday briefing. They are declaring everyone irrespective of other clinical history as Covid death if they test positive for Covid. To have fair comparison, one should also test every dead person for flu and check how many die with flu. Seriously, it is known many cadavers when checked, one can find many cancers, but no one does that and declares death due to cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4485977/ The High Prevalence of Undiagnosed Prostate Cancer at Autopsy: Among men aged 70-79, tumor was found in 36% of Caucasians and 51% of African-Americans. Will Dr. Fauci with straight face can say about 40% americans die of prostate cancer? So is that the best answer you can give to justify why so many millions need to loose jobs? Pay attention, look things up, you'll find answers to all your questions, you don't need me to hand-hold you.

Meanwhile, like a good narcissist, Trump brags about his TV ratings: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1247897591611682818?s=20

I think most people would also rather have a few difficult months than lose their parents/uncles/friends/coworkers/etc. It's not just the old, but those with other health issues, which includes obesity, diabetes, heart problems, compromised immune system, etc, and a lot of things that affect people of all ages. Some people act like "underlying health condition" means "not a real person who deserved to die anyway" when it's pointed out that a victim had some other illness... I guess people tend to see it all as statistics rather than think about their mom or favorite mentor. What proof actually is there that shutdowns work? Most of South East Asia countries (Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, etc) never had any shutdown and their numbers are low. Italy had lot of shutdown and their numbers are high. Empirically what proof exists that shutdowns work? What we know is we are working with imperfect and missing data. There is a ton we don't know. But many here do not have the intellectual humility to admit that. They are experts and they know their models are bulletproof. So don't rock the boat - or you too will be ridiculed endlessly. Anyone who has looked at what places like Taiwan and Singapore (and South-Korea) have done knows that they've done about 100x more than most other places and were prepared and had epidemiologists running the show from early on, with strict quanratines (they call you and the police comes to your door if your phone runs out of battery while on quarantine), contact tracing, massive testing early on, face masks, clear communications from leaders and population understood what was going on and bought in, etc. Italy is an example of what not to do. May have been a cultural thing, but population didn't respect social distancing for a long time in the early weeks, it was widely believed it wasn't a big deal, just the flu. Then they shut down small areas (red zones) and announced it in advance, so people fled from there to not get stuck and went to infect the rest of the country. Then they shut down a wider area, and things repeated. And then by the time they did the whole thing, it was too late and they had one of the worst situations in the world. Kind of like what the US has done... But if we're starting to peak in some places now, it's because these places have been shutdown for about 3 weeks, which is how long it takes because of the inertia built in the system with the incubation period. It's not rocket science that if people were still going out, infections and deaths would be much higher.

Who's leaving it out? I'm not. That's why I think Trump's handling of this was so bad. Both sides of this crisis would be better with some competence.

I think most people would also rather have a few difficult months than lose their parents/uncles/friends/coworkers/etc. It's not just the old, but those with other health issues, which includes obesity, diabetes, heart problems, compromised immune system, etc, and a lot of things that affect people of all ages. Some people act like "underlying health condition" means "not a real person who deserved to die anyway" when it's pointed out that a victim had some other illness... I guess people tend to see it all as statistics rather than think about their mom or favorite mentor.

It's a disaster either way, but the numbers are not independent of each other. There's fewer deaths because people are staying home. The way to mitigate both deaths and economic impact was to have a better response when this was small, but that ship has sailed. As Bill Gates says, this isn't as simple as "deciding" to reopen on a dime. People won't ignore that "pile of bodies in the corner" and just get back to their lives as if nothing is going on, this needs to be brought under control. This isn't just affecting those who are 80, as is quite clear when you look anywhere. Dying isn't the only thing that can go wrong. Having double pneumonia with high fever for days isn't exactly a walk in the park and can leave permanent damage to both heart and lungs, and overwhelming medical capacity means people die from other causes that could've been saved, so it compounds.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/04/07/trump-dismantled-the-very-jobs-meant-to-stop-the-covid-19-epidemic-173347 "The government agencies designed to protect us are riddled with vacancies and temporary officials. No wonder we’re facing a catastrophe."

https://radfordneal.wordpress.com/2020/04/06/body-mass-and-risk-from-covid-19-and-influenza/ "Body Mass and Risk from COVID-19 and Influenza"

Oh, and btw, Joe Biden op-ed about it in January: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/27/coronavirus-donald-trump-made-us-less-prepared-joe-biden-column/4581710002/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/americans-are-paying-the-price-for-trumps-failures/609532/ This is long, but for those who are sick of seeing history being rewritten before their eyes and don't like being gaslighted, here's the timeline of what actually happened:

Thread on serum antibody tests:

Reddit comment:

I don't get your point. Probably because you don't have one. The criticism was never that Trump should've seen the future in January and done everything with perfect foresight, and so if the democratic candidates didn't get it perfectly back then either, then Trump can't be blamed. That's a total strawman that you made up, as is your habit. It's also insane to claim that candidates have all the info that a sitting president has. When you're the president, there's someone in charge of a certain area (terrorism, public health, cybersecurity, whatever) that comes to you and briefs you, they don't go to candidates or journalists. The idea is that stuff with the federal response started going wrong in January with the data they had at the time, kept going wrong in February with the data they had at the time, and kept going wrong in March, and is still going wrong today, and the US infection curve is clearly one of the worst in the world and the president has mostly been improvising/bullshitting through this whole thing, mostly caring about the impact on his reelection.

Good news everyone, the recession is over, Ivanka created 15 million jobs!

Tracker updated daily on COVID19 research: https://covid19primer.com/ Also: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/07/coronavirus-relief-trump-removes-inspector-general-overseeing-2-trillion-package.html

What a word thinker you are. Conversely, if they had talked about it, you still wouldn't be happy, because you don't care about what you're saying here, just about trying to score points. Meanwhile, Trump was praising China and Xi: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220818115354923009?s=20 The president runs the CDC/FDA/DHS/HHS/NSA/CIA/CENTCOM/etc, he gets briefed on everything that's going on, he's the one in charge, the one governing. He picks his advisors and secretaries, and if they're incompetent and don't bring stuff up to him or manage it well, it's also his fault. Candidates in a party's primary don't. Governors either. Saying that others' didn't do the president's job is pointless. They're not the president. They have a different job. But I'm pretty sure that if any rando off the street was currently president, his son-in-law wouldn't be running a pandemic response, though. They probably would've also studied up enough on the situation to not make the most dumbass comments about the virus at every press conference.

Ideologues plugging their talking point at any chance. To the hammer, everything looks like a nail. Am I advocating for more government? Where? How about effective government for the things where you need it? If you need a military, would you rather an incompetent, corrupt one or a well-run one? How about the same for pandemic response? Hard to argue that pandemic situations (which is all about rapid collective response/coordination) would be better without government, or with a much smaller government, when even the republicans are falling over themselves to spend 2.2 trillion (so far) to keep the country from falling into the deepest depression since the 1930s.. asking for 250bn more today. Glad about the CDC. Still, funding's not everything, you also have to be smart enough to understand what your experts are telling you (can you imagine Trump reading a report before making his mind? He just goes by what his handlers tell him, or what he sees on cable TV), or at least surround yourself with people smarter than you are and listen to them, and act rationally on it, rather than be surrounded by sycophants who tell you what you want to hear because you get angry at anyone who doesn't, and then spend weeks on wishful thinking (it's air-tight, it's just the flu, it'll go away soon, it's a few cases, etc) and blaming others. I mean, they also have NASA and NOAA telling them about global warming, but they don't listen to that either.