johnnybangkok

Just now, Logosone said:

Well, let's not go nuts, I'm not crazy about the Swedish language, nor is there food anything to write home about. Definitely not an Ikea fan.

 

Though my first car was a Saab 9-5...

 

Hmmmmmm

I don't make the evidence, I just report it

12 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I can assure you that they along with the rest of us,including you,were going to die anyway.

No need to give it a helping hand though eh?

16 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Well the first love of my life was Swedish. My grandparents had a summer house in Sweden. I used to go there in winter for skiiing. What's not to love, they're very friendly sensible people.

 

And they're smart.

 

But the point is their chief epidemiologist is taking a courageous stance. He is allowing people to be adults.

 

He is allowing a country to continue to go in the sun. Which a Spanish study shows could be very important, as Vitamain D shows real benefits for Covid19 patients.

 

He is allowing people to be free.

 

What's not to love?

'Well the first love of my life was Swedish. My grandparents had a summer house in Sweden. I used to go there in winter for skiiing. What's not to love, they're very friendly sensible people'.

Knew it. You're a Suecophile. 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suecophile 

14 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I'm still waiting to see if C19 global death toll reaches the global yearly flu death toll of 400,000 to see if I've chosen the right argument that C19 is just a flu which I hope to win as that would mean a much lower than feared death toll of C19.

The sounds like a fun game. 

But unless they quarantine everyone every year and rigourously test them for any signs of flu, it's not really the same is it? And the mortality rate isn't dependant on the total number of dead but rather the total number of infected that died. 

2 hours ago, rumak said:

ah,  always so easy to dismiss what you don't like.

 

you have a TRUE  figure on how many people may feel this way?

Or is it another "fact"  that you are priveledge to ?

 

How about trying the " everybody knows"  line    lol

 

you know, it is a fact that the brightest people on earth represent a very small percentage.

unfortunately their only access to others is in comment sections , where guys

like you  just laughhhh

 

when you have to throw the "tin foil hat"  comment into your post it becomes obvious that you can not think for yourself.   

There is are a couple of studies knocking around that purport to know the actual percentages of people who belive in conspiracy theories but it isn't a finite art as it is often skewed with some people believing one theory whilst others believe the whole lot. But in the UK about 60% of people believe in at least one conspracy   https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/study-shows-60-of-britons-believe-in-conspiracy-theories 

My answer to them all is to show me a significent conspiracy that has been eventually proven as fact. You'll be very hard pressed to quote any major ones but there are a couple of smaller, insignificent ones that you can cling to https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12297024

But since the burden of proof lies with the one saying the fact/theory, in my experience when brought to task their replies have usually been short on proof/evidence/fact and heavy on circumstance/bias/lies. 

12 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

The average yearly flu deaths in Thailand is about 2700 which is over 50 times deadlier than C19 at this stage do you fear the flu as much as C19?

Actually I don't fear either as I don't fall into the 'most at risk' category. I was just refuting a ridiculous point with another one.

But if I had to choose I would go with Covid what with the 20 to 30 times more deadly bit.

34 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Meanwhile in Sweden where bars, restaurants and massage spas have been open and continue to be open:

 

"Sweden could have 'herd immunity' by next month, claims its infectious diseases chief amid as deaths stay low despite relaxed lockdown measures"

 

"Dr Tegnell has defended his limited interventions, telling The Mail on Sunday that he believed that Britain's lockdown had gone too far.

 

He told the paper that Sweden was 'following' the UK's original approach of resisting lockdown, and was 'disappointed' by Britain's abrupt U-turn.

 

'I am very sceptical of lockdowns altogether but if you ever do them, you should do them at an early stage,' Dr Tegnell claimed.

 

He added: 'So far, what we are doing is working. In a sense we are beating it, and I am confident we are doing the best we can in the circumstances.'

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8233783/Sweden-herd-immunity-month-claims-infectious-diseases-chief.html

God you love those Swedes don't you? Was it Agnetha or Frida that did it for you?

Actual scratch that. Obviously Frida.  

2 hours ago, Skallywag said:

True, agreed.  I do not have much empathy for the "human condition" anymore.  I have been tipping more to the Thai people who I know and use their services is about all.  Have only been an expat here for 2 years, and did plan on volunteering and such, yet have not done that.  My finances are limited, so cannot be out there serving 150 - 600 free meals a day like the Nightwish group on Soi 6 and others around Pattaya.  I do post or show info on the free meal giveaways to friends and people I know locally, so they can partake of the charitable offerings if they want.  

 

No sure how one person's empathy can help the global economic impact, but am willing to listen if you have suggestions

It takes a big man to admit they're at fault so I applaud you for your post.

You ask for suggestions and the biggest one I can offer is to try and not relate everything back to your 'golden days' and your own personal experiences. It's a common thing I see a lot of here on TV especially amongst the Boomer generation, but all it does is highlight a social divide where (usually) white, middle-class people look back with misty eyes to a time they believe was better than now. Firstly, this time was not better for a lot of people; the lower class, many ethnics (especially in America and Australia) and the disadvantaged will all probably give you a version of the same time period you would barely recognise. Secondly, by all measures possible (infant mortality, life expectancy, social mobility etc) now is a much better time than back in the 50's or 60's to be alive, even if you came from a middle-class/privelaged upbringing. 

Also, you are not a part of the greatest generation who fought and died for all of our liberty (unless you are over 90) but you did enjoy the prosperity and benefits they created so when someone like myself (Gen X) sees a lack of empathy from the boomer generation for those less fortunate than themselves it simply comes across as spoiled. This is also reflected with the many posters here on this thread who are quite happy to trade their continued economic prosperity (because that affects them) with people dying en-masse as 'well it doesn't affect me, so why should I bother' attitude. The selfishness is truly something to behold.

I in turn will now apologise as although this thread seems to be directed at you personally, it's really directed at all the other boomers who still continue to live in their self-absorbed bubble and who put self over the good of the whole. It is reflected in their politics, their world view and their attitude to the Covid subject (which is even more surprising considering they are classified in the 'most vulnerable' category). 

NOTE TO OTHER READERS:- I am obviously not talking about ALL boomers so if you are reading this with a 'I'm not like that' then fine. It's not directed at you and you don't need to comment.

1 hour ago, Skallywag said:

True-that.  I grew up in a different time.  You saved enough for three months of being out of work, your rent/mortgage was never more than 30% of your income, you didnt buy things on credit, especially automobiles. Yes you had a mortgage, but as pointed out, you saved enough money to pay that if out of work.  No expensive phones, phone plans, no A/C (we used evaporative coolers in AZ) so many differences  

Yes, the hungry need food, the unemployed need work, and the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions will die.

Was only reporting on my perspective as a retiree, did not many are having to live through.  In reality, global poverty and deaths related to it has been very high for many years, before we had this pandemic.

"More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty."   

https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-global-poverty

You are showing your privelage and lack of empathy there.

I would suggest that the worst affected with this pandemic will be living pay-check to pay-check, don't have cars as no one is going to give them any credit (never mind for something as big as a car) and they can only dream of having a mortgage.

It's an isue with the boomer generation that they always believe that poor people are somehow responsible for it themselves; that they are lazy and irresponsible and only have to 'pull themselves together' for it all to get much better when societal study after societal study proves this is simply not true. 

Have a read of this https://theconversation.com/why-poverty-is-not-a-personal-choice-but-a-reflection-of-society-79552. It's US centric but can easily be a blue-print for many countries in the world.   

You may not 'mean to minimize the global economic and viral disaster' but that's excatly what you are doing with your 'it wouldn't happen in my day' post.

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

Very interesting and well thought out post.

 

On the point of self isolation, this is a social distancing measure. Some serious academic studies from China have shown that social distancing measures like travel restrictions have delayed the spread of the virus by 3, others say by 4 days. It is possible therfore that self isolation slows transmission of the virus. Whether it did so by days or weeks or months in the UK we do not really know for sure, as no serious studies have been done to examine this.

 

Looking at the extremely poor performance of the UK when compared to other countries it would certainly indicate that self-isolation is not as effective as testing and isolating. It certainly will not end the pandemic. Whether it had as dramatic an impact as some believe, studies would have to be done to determine. It may well be that, like in China it only delayed the spread by a few days. Whether that is worth the economic consequences is the question I would put to you.

 

I don't think the notion that Sweden and the UK can't be compared is persuasive, we can see if we look at the people per km squared that the population density of Stockholm is not worlds apart from London's, as London is sprawled over a larger geographic area. Nor do we know if population plays as large a role as some believe, since many of the worst affected areas were not the most densely populated areas, but rather villages in Lombardy, in Catalonia. If I look at Germany, it is not exclusively the most densely or highly populated cities that are most affected.

 

For instance the relatively population poor area of Heinsberg, with a low population density, was in fourth place behind Berlin, Hamburg and Munich but ahead of much more densely populated high population cities like Frankfurt, Cologne or Stuttgart.

 

This does not support the idea that population density is a key factor.

 

In terms of Seoul, they were not prepared through SARS. Like Germany their private biotech companies reacted immediateley when the genome was published and worked hard to produce a large number of tests. Something the UK could have done but failed to do. The South Koreans did test a lot, and their response has been interesting. However, whether the figures they provide, a country known for endemic corruption and mismanagement, are accurate is another question. I have some doubts about the figures provided by China, South Korea, Japan, Thailand and co.

 

Testing would have been available to the UK, if they had done what Germany and South Korea did, and let private companies produce the test kits needed. The UK could have done so but failed to do it.

 

It only took very few weeks to produce test kits in countries that did so, a small single German company produced 1.4 million test kits in four weeks. So the UK did not have to focus on social distancing for as long as they did.

 

They have now focused on testing, and lo and behold, as soon as testing and isolating the infected is ramped up we see new cases tapering off. Again, testing, once implemented shows it is the way to beat the virus, as Mike Ryan of the WHO said for weeks.

 

If we find that Sweden, who has done very minimal social distancing, ramps up testing and similarly gets new cases to taper off (remember UK and Sweden were both at 10% mortality yesterday)  that would support the case for testing and isolating the infected alone and would indicate that social isolation of the extreme kind as done in the UK is not necessary.

Firstly lets clear up the S. Korea point. I was slightly wrong with saying it was SARS, h1N1, Swine Flu etc when in fact it was MERS:- 

'In 2015, the country experienced a sudden and unexpected outbreak of MERS – Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, which is also caused by a coronavirus. It was the largest MERS outbreak outside of the Middle East, and led to 185 confirmed cases in South Korea. It also led to a firm belief that testing should form a central part of any response to a viral epidemic.

So when COVID-19 hit South Korea, testing became the course of action that seems to have set the country apart from other nations.' https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/south-korea-covid-19-containment-testing/

Secondly you absolutely cannot say 'This does not support the idea that population density is a key factor.' When you look at all the major Covid hot spot areas that are atributing to large infections and covid deaths, they are almost exclusively cities. Here is the top 10 infected countries and their major cities: https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/covid-19-coronavirus-top-ten-most-affected-countries/

1. USA - New York has 9,000 deaths out of a national total of 40,000. This is 25%.

2. Italy - Most cases are in Lombardy where Milan dominates the area. 7,176 deaths out of a total of 16,000. That's 45%.

3. Spain - Out of 20,000 deaths, Madrid acoounts for 7,300 (37%)

4. Germany - Out of 4,600 deaths, Bayern acounts for 1,256 (27%)

5. China - Don't believe the figures so no point going there

6. France -LLe-de-France (which includes Paris) 3,400 deaths out of 18,000 (20%) 

7. Iran - Official figures are suspect but they say 5,118 deaths of which 33% are in Tehran.

8. UK - as mentioned in an earlier post London accounts for 30% of UK covid deaths.

9. Switzerland - 1,400 deaths almost exclusively to Geneva, Zurich, Ticino and Boast

10. Turkey - 2,017 deaths of which Istanbul accounts for 60% of all known cases.

Even Ecuador's biggest city, Guayaquil, is one of the worst-hit places in Latin America and if we are to believe Thailand death total of 47, 30 of them are in Bangkok. You can cherry pick 'villages in Lombardy' and places like 'Heinsberg' but the overall WORLD stats tell a very different story.

But is it really that surprising to you that major population centres with a larger congregation of people are recording higher rates of Covid? The sheer nature of infection means that proximity plays an important role as it has done in every major pandemic in the past.

The figures I have posted (and you can verify with your own Google search) prove that population centres dominate Covid infections and deaths and although impossible just now to prove that self-isolation and social distancing are completely effective in halting the spread, it certainly adds credance to it being the case.     

And again, I'm not arguing the point that testing, identifying and isolating is the best way forward and that many countries governments have been left sorely lacking in the face of this pandemic but rather, I'm arguing that if testing to an effective level isn't available then self-isolation and social distancing are the only ammunation left in many countries armoury. And with infection rates plateuing and in many cases going down, it seems to be working.

1 hour ago, Skallywag said:

No one I know of has been "told to stay home" in Thailand. Yes, I wear a mask now when outside.

Am not a barfly, so not being able to hang out at bars doesn't affect me.  Don't need to "shop" for new stuff at malls, or see a new movie at a mall

Still get beer at my local shop (guess they are dissenters).  Drink beer out by the pool here with friends in the evening (pool closed though - that sucks)  My favorite massage ladies are still giving massages (stay inside shop now with door ajar) . TF still active.  Walk every day along Dongtan or Pattaya beach.  Get food at restaurants (take away is a bit of a drag)  Buy groceries when needed.  Can walk inside Big C or Central if too hot out.

Less noise, more serene, no drunken rowdy tourists, less traffic, less trash. 

Almost everything since the "shutdown" has been a positive as I see it. 

 

Glas it's all working out for you. 

Perhaps ask the ill, the unemployed, the hungry, the soon to be destitute and the dead what 'positives' they are seeing.

55 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The reason why I mention Sweden is that they are the example of a country that has basically done very little. Insignificant testing and only late and half-hearted and very limited social distancing.

 

So you can use that example to compare against a country like Austria which has done a whole lot of testing and the UK which has done less testing (per capita) but has been strong on social distancing.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109066/coronavirus-testing-in-europe-by-country/

 

We do have stats and numbers, but we do not have serious, strong studies that would prove, say in the UK, it was when testing was ramped up that it was testing and isolating the infected and not social distancing that helped the UK to reduce the number of cases.

 

What I see is that whenever a country has succeeded in keeping the mortality low, like Germany, South Korea it was mass testing that was key. Not social distancing.

 

If Sweden, who did neither, has the same numbers as the UK, but worse numbers than a country like Germany that did mass testing on a great scale, that would support the argument that mass testing, not social distancing, was the key. But yes, we need hard studies to confirm this.

 

Personally I don't think people will start dying in Sweden in greater numbers, on the contrary, as they ramp up testing their case numbers will go up drastically but their deaths probably won't. So their mortality figure will get better.

 

I had a look at the study you posted. It looks very poor and not peer reviewed. I was thinking more of studies that evaluate data from centres for disesase control, not online surveys.

Helsinki has a population of 600,000, London has a population of 8.9 million, nearly as much as the whole of Sweden (10 million). Currently 30% of the whole of the UK's Covid dead are in London a total of 3,825. 

It's a big number but do you want to try and tell me that self-isolation hasn't kept that number lower than it would have been if everyone was allowed to wander around and mingle like before? 

The fact that Sweden chose it's path is in no way an indication of whether it would work for everyone else, especially when talking about highly populated areas like London. IF successful (and the panels still out on that one) then all that will be proven is their method worked for Sweden (they are still doing other things though that make absolute sense and pointed out by other posters i.e. quarantining the most at risk).  

The better anology would be Seol as with a population of nearly 10 million it closely resembles London. Through extensive testing, tracking and isolating they have managed to keep infection numbers impressively low and deaths even lower (in the hundereds rather than thousands). But (and it's a big but) they had already been geared up for this through preperations from SARS, h1N1, Swine Flu etc. Their disease control authorities are very well funded and sprang into action with mass testing on an unprecidented scale. They caught it early, did all the right things and are a model to emulate.

The UK (and many other countries) on the other hand weren't well-funded, reacted awfully (to herd immunity or not to herd ummunity) and don't have the testing capabilities to even start down this route.

So we know what works for sure but where we differ in opinion is what to do when that option isn't available to you. My point is that self-isolation is a better option whilst waiting for the tried and trusted method to be available (all you hear from the UK government is this magic 100,000 tests a day goal they are trying desperately to achieve) than letting everyone just get on with it which we absolutely know will spread the virus. If you type 'covid stats for london' you will see a nice graph and a current plateu and the predictions are this will remain and cases start dropping in the next few weeks. This will hopefully give the incompetant British government the time they so desperately need to get the large scale testing (that they know will work) up and running.  

They are buying time but it is time being given to them through self-isolation.

(And yes this is the politicians fault and no it doesn't mean that capitalism is the fault and isolationism is the answer (as many other posters would love to see). Questions need to be asked  and people need to be held responsible but lets get things under control first).    

12 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

We have seen with the swine flu, where the vaccine is only effective 50% of the time, and earlier unsuccessful attempts to produce a SARS vaccine, which actually caused patients to get more sick from the virus, that indeed the hope of a miracle vaccine may not be fulfilled.

 

So lockdown is doomed to failure in any event. It can only be a temporary measure. It does very little to end a pandemic, and can in fact make it worse.

 

People point to Sweden's higher death figure now. However, in the long term this figure may compare very favourably with Denmark et all where immunity could be weaker due to greater lockdown requirements. So subsequent waves could be worse for Sweden's neighbours, but less so for Swedes.

 

We will see.

Yes we will see because there is not nearly enough stats to say that your much heralded 'Sweden system' works any better than everyone elses social distancing. You simply cannot say this is a better approach with absolutley no stats to prove the point.

But preliminary studies in the UK though do say self-isolation and social distancing HAS slowed down the spread in the UK https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-spread/preliminary-study-finds-uk-lockdown-is-slowing-spread-of-covid-19-idUSKBN21J56W and common sense says if you take away the main ways of spreading a virus (close proximity and isolating the infected), the virus itsel;f has nowhere to go.

I sincerely hope that Sweden is proven correct in its method but if their Covid cases suddenly increase and people start dying are you going to be the first on here to say they (and you) got it wrong?   

On 4/17/2020 at 7:01 PM, Krataiboy said:

I repeat, there is no credible evidence that those countries which have lockdowns would not be better off without them. One has to balance any upsides of this dubious strategy against the many downsides, which which remain to haunt us long after the virus is only able to infect the history books.

Maybe you should ask those excuses for journalists employed by the newspaper you cite about their failure to report success stories from the numerous countries - at least 21 at the last count - which have decided against shutting their citizens away like naughty children yet don't even have double-figure deaths. 

Interestingly, the Grauniad and the rest of MSM continue to play up over the continuing high death rates in those lockdown-loving nations, like the UK, US, Spain, you seem to think are doing so well.

There's worse just around the corner. Health experts are now warning that using the lockdown hammer to crack a relative walnut of a pandemic is stoking up health (mental, especially) problems for the future. 

The video to which have provided a link will hopefully lift the spirits of at least some of the millions of scared and anxious victims enduring government-induced house arrest with only the mass media's relentless fear-mongering for company.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmHRYzF0dyQ&t=17s

 

I don't disagree with the need to get back to normal and save the world economy but I do disagree with there 'is no credible evidence that those countries which have lockdowns would not be better off without them'.

Most experts agree though that the RO for Covid is approx 2-3 times greater than seasonal flu and mortality is 20-30 times more (flu has 0.1% mortality, Covid anywhere between 2 and 3%, higher of course for at risk groups). This is why it is so worrying and why when you extrapulate the numbers out, without current measures of self-isolation and social distancing, you would see much, much higher amounts of death and if tens of millions of people become sick and millions die, the economy suffers, and not just because the workforce is being depleted. Widespread fear is bad for business: consumers won’t flock back to restaurants, book air travel, or spend on activities that might put them at risk of getting sick. 

However, I absolutely agree that the current lockdown cannot continue for much longer. The overall economic impact of the lockdown is causing far too much hardship already and if left for any longer, will literally decimate the world economy. But how to get back to 'normal', withought putting too many people at risk? Here are my suggestions:-

1. Those deemed 'most at risk' must continue to self-isolate until either the crisis abates or a vacine is found.

2. All people on the 'front line' must be adequately protected, meaning mask and gowns and anything else they need is readily available.

3. Borders must open but only people with a valid health certificate (dated within the last 2 weeks) are allowed to travel.

4. Testing MUST be ramped up, with those testing positive forced to self-isolate (or admitted to hospital if particularly bad). To this end, large amounts of government funds need to be deployed to testing, either from existing 'emergency funds' or seperate funds. For example if the US put $100 billion of the $2 trillion stimulus to testing, it would be able to test enough people to get on top of the outbreak. Testing machines (from the likes of Cepheid and Roche), can handle 4,200 tests a day; build five thousand of those machines, and you can test 20 million people a day. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/08/998785/stop-covid-or-save-the-economy-we-can-do-both.

6. Emulate successful countries like South Korea, who have managed to mitigate the deadlier effects of the virus whilst still keeping much of their economy open. Behind its success has been the most expansive and well-organized testing program in the world, combined with extensive efforts to isolate infected people and trace and quarantine their contacts. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/coronavirus-cases-have-dropped-sharply-south-korea-whats-secret-its-success.

The issue right now though is many countries don't have the means for mass testing, hence the only measure open to them; lockdown. Sensible heads though can come up with sensible and effective measures once countries catch up and get ahead of this pandemic. This will unfortuantely, still take some time.

Note to moderator - I have used some of these stats and conclusions in anothe post so hopefully I will be allowed to repeat them here as they are essentially the same stats for a similar debate.  

Just now, cornishcarlos said:

 

How many of those were healthy people with no underlying conditions ??

How many were MacDonalds eating, diabetic couch potatoes ?

How many were over 80 yrs old ??

A lot. But I would suggest that a lot of Americans are 'MacDonalds eating, diabetic couch potatoes' and therein lies the problem. The underlying health conditions of a nation play a big role in this matter, as does demographics, with countries with a significent older population having more to worry about (Italy for example has nearly 30% of its population over 55 years old https://www.statista.com/statistics/789270/population-in-italy-by-age-group/). 

The issue with Covid is there really isn't enough statistic in place to give an accurate assesment of overall health risk, whereas seasonal flu has been around long enough for us to have the stats. Saying this, most experts agree though that the RO is approx 2-3 times greater than seasonal flu and mortality is 20-30 times more (flu has 0.1% mortality, Covid anywhere between 2 and 3%, higher of course for at risk groups). This is why it is so worrying and why when you extrapulate the numbers out, with current measures you would see much, much higher amounts of death and if tens of millions of people become sick and millions die, the economy suffers, and not just because the workforce is being depleted. Widespread fear is bad for business: consumers won’t flock back to restaurants, book air travel, or spend on activities that might put them at risk of getting sick. 

Getting back to the OP's point though, I absolutely agree that the current lockdown cannot continue for much longer. The overall economic impact of the lockdown is causing far too much hardship already and if left for any longer, will literally decimate the world economy. But how to get back to 'normal', withought putting too many people at risk? Here are my suggestions:-

1. Those deemed 'most at risk' must continue to self-isolate until either the crisis abates or a vacine is found.

2. All people on the 'front line' must be adequately protected, meaning mask and gowns and anything else they need is readily available.

3. Borders must open but only people with a valid health certificate (dated within the last 2 weeks) are allowed to travel.

4. Testing MUST be ramped up, with those testing positive forced to self-isolate (or admitted to hospital if particularly bad). To this end, large amounts of government funds need to be deployed to testing, either from existing 'emergency funds' or seperate funds. For example if the US put $100 billion of the $2 trillion stimulus to testing, it would be able to test enough people to get on top of the outbreak. Testing machines (from the likes of Cepheid and Roche), can handle 4,200 tests a day; build five thousand of those machines, and you can test 20 million people a day. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/08/998785/stop-covid-or-save-the-economy-we-can-do-both.

6. Emulate successful countries like South Korea, who have managed to mitigate the deadlier effects of the virus whilst still keeping much of their economy open. Behind its success has been the most expansive and well-organized testing program in the world, combined with extensive efforts to isolate infected people and trace and quarantine their contacts. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/coronavirus-cases-have-dropped-sharply-south-korea-whats-secret-its-success

Despite all the warnings over the years by the likes of the WHO and even Bill Gates, it has become painful obvious The World and in turn individual countries were woefuly unprepared for this pandemic and have been caught completely by surprise. We can't cry over spilled milk now but the answer to an opening of the economy is already there IF sensible and knowledgable people are allowed to talk. Once we impliment these measures worldwide (and it would need a worldwide consensus) we can finally start getting back to normal. And in the furture hopefully countries will realise their mistake (and cost) in not preparing fully for pandemics and get much better prepared for the future as you can be damn sure this is not going to be the first time we will see the likes of this again.   

On 4/15/2020 at 3:01 PM, Krataiboy said:

At least preferable to the 400,000 forecast by one of the UK's leading health experts, which prompted the UK government's economy-wrecking lockdown.

So you applaud the fact the deaths will be greatly reduced but bemoan the 'economy-wrecking lockdown'.

You do understand that the lockdown is the reason that deaths will be greatly reduced and an unfortunate by-product is the damage to the economy? You simply cannot have it both ways. The UK government started down the track of limited lockdowns and herd immunity but when the numbers came back (250,000 to 400,000) deaths, they rightfully changed tack.    

44 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Point taken and the WHO have admitted this mistake but at that time they only had information from China (not particularly known for their honesty). But by 22 January 2020 after 
a mission to China, the WHO issued a statement saying that there was evidence of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan but more investigation was needed to understand the full extent of transmission. By 30th January they had issued a statement that Covid-19 was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/08-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19

In other words there was a quick response to the initial mistake (1 week) and literally 2 weeks later they declared an international warning. It still took Trump until the 13th March to declare a national emergency, wasting vital weeks of preperation. 
However, he wasn't alone in taking his sweet time with the Uk, Japan, Australia and several other countries dragging thier heels, but the major difference is they didn't ignore it, deny it, minimised it, call it a Democratic hoax, spread false information, back false cures and generally flew in the face of all scientific and W.H.O. advice like Trump did.

That's where the blame lies.

 

 

Perhaps instead of replying to my posts with a derogatory laughing emoji, the likes of Issan sailor and Crazy Alex could venture their version of these events? I'm more than happy to stand corrected IF you both can provide facts that say diffirent to what I am posting.

Facts though please.

3 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

"Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus  " 

 

is NOT at all the same as "coronovirus can't be spread by humans"

 

They accurately quoted what Chinese authorities were saying at the time, without taking a position on its accuracy

 

And even the Chinese at that point were not saying "can't be spread by humans".  Not in the least.

Point taken and the WHO have admitted this mistake but at that time they only had information from China (not particularly known for their honesty). But by 22 January 2020 after 
a mission to China, the WHO issued a statement saying that there was evidence of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan but more investigation was needed to understand the full extent of transmission. By 30th January they had issued a statement that Covid-19 was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/08-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19

In other words there was a quick response to the initial mistake (1 week) and literally 2 weeks later they declared an international warning. It still took Trump until the 13th March to declare a national emergency, wasting vital weeks of preperation. 
However, he wasn't alone in taking his sweet time with the Uk, Japan, Australia and several other countries dragging thier heels, but the major difference is they didn't ignore it, deny it, minimised it, call it a Democratic hoax, spread false information, back false cures and generally flew in the face of all scientific and W.H.O. advice like Trump did.

That's where the blame lies.

6 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Apparently Dr. Fauci wasn't listening, either. Here's what he said about the virus on February 29:

 

"No. Right now, at this moment, there’s no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day by day basis. Right now the risk is still low, but this could change. I’ve said that many times even on this program. You’ve got to watch out because although the risk is low now, you don’t need to change anything you’re doing. When you start to see community spread, this could change and force you to become much more attentive to doing things that would protect you from spread."

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/13/deanna-lorraine/tweet-amplified-trump-misleads-faucis-late-februar/

Also from exactly the same page you have quoted for your own confirmation bias it says:

• A Trump supporter’s tweet misleadingly portrays advice that Dr. Anthony Fauci gave publicly on Feb. 29.

• On that date, Fauci said rules Americans would come to know as social distancing were not yet warranted. 

• However, just about every other sentence of his remarks was filled with caveats indicating that the situation could change. He did not suggest that there was “nothing to worry about” or that the virus “posed no threat to the public.”

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/13/deanna-lorraine/tweet-amplified-trump-misleads-faucis-late-februar/

Nice try