Trump considers reopening U.S. economy despite coronavirus spread

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

Nobody is saying to the let the pandemic run unchecked, however, the head of the WHO, Mike Ryan has said loud and clear that social isolation alone will do nothing, that health services have to test, identify and isolate to prevail.

 

"What we really need to focus on is finding those who are sick, those who have the virus, and isolate them, find their contacts and isolate them," Mike Ryan said in an interview on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/22/world/europe/22reuters-health-coronavirus-who-ryan.html

 

The US health system is not prepared for this. Even Seattle needed Bill Gates to get test kits from his foundation.

 

If you think US health care will not be overwhelmed I think you're wrong, almost every health service in the world was, and the US has a population that is far larger than most of them, many more cases to deal with.

 

It is virtually certain that before the US can do a full test, identify and isolate solution it will long have developed herd immunity. To let the only  economy that can lead the world out of the depression go into self-imposed ruin would be criminally reckless.

 

One can think of the lives of the 80 year old people who will die, but one must also think of the future, the children who will pay for an economic apocalypse that will happen if the economy is not taken seriously. And their children, and their children's children.

 

This is not just playing with our lives, this is playing with future generations' lives. This is not just about 'luxuries' being denied, entire existential wipeouts are being committed on a level of several millions. Larry Kudlow is right, the cure should not be worse than the disease.

 

I will give a qualified concession on one point:  most hospitals will be overwhelmed.  According to a study by the Harvard Global Health Initiative, in a moderate scenario in which 40% of the population catch the virus over the next 18 months and 5% of those require hospitalized, hospital bed capacity would have to be increased by 74%.  A difficult but not insurmountable problem.

 

However in the same 40% sick and 5% hospitalized scenario taking place within six months, the US will require more than seven times the existing number of hospital beds.  That is an insurmountable problem.   https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/covid-hospitals

 

I prefer the first scenario.  Which do you prefer?

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Got it. Take the only statement worth responding to.

Really?  I think the comparison between the high crisis approval rating of the incompetent President Bush to the comparatively low crisis approval rating of the more incompetent President Trump is the heart of the post. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Really?  I think the comparison between the high crisis approval rating of the incompetent President Bush to the comparatively low crisis approval rating of the more incompetent President Trump is the heart of the post. 

That's an excellent point you make about the relatively low level of support despite it being an emergency. Here's something to back that up.  Emerson College has a highly respected poll that has consistently shown Trump doing better than do other top rated pollsters. In the latest round Trump got an approval rating of 46 to 45. But what was most interesting was they also asked voters who they would vote for in the next election. Both Biden and Sanders beat Trump by 6 points. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

 

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I will give a qualified concession on one point:  most hospitals will be overwhelmed.  According to a study by the Harvard Global Health Initiative, in a moderate scenario in which 40% of the population catch the virus over the next 18 months and 5% of those require hospitalized, hospital bed capacity would have to be increased by 74%.  A difficult but not insurmountable problem.

 

However in the same 40% sick and 5% hospitalized scenario taking place within six months, the US will require more than seven times the existing number of hospital beds.  That is an insurmountable problem.   https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/covid-hospitals

 

I prefer the first scenario.  Which do you prefer?

Thanks, lovely graphics, good article, but it only confirms the experience in Europe. Governments did not prepare and hospitals will be totally overwhelmed.

 

Yes, all nations scrambled to increase their numbers of hospital beds. Unfortunately just putting extra beds does not kill the virus. Self-isolation does not kill the virus. The only thing that can kill the virus is herd immunity, if more people are immune the virus can not spread. Testing and isolating would work, but the US is too large for this to work in the US.

 

Therefore opening the US for business would be the quickest way to achieve herd immunity.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Logosone said:

Thanks, lovely graphics, good article, but it only confirms the experience in Europe. Governments did not prepare and hospitals will be totally overwhelmed.

 

Yes, all nations scrambled to increase their numbers of hospital beds. Unfortunately just putting extra beds does not kill the virus. Self-isolation does not kill the virus. The only thing that can kill the virus is herd immunity, if more people are immune the virus can not spread. Testing and isolating would work, but the US is too large for this to work in the US.

 

Therefore opening the US for business would be the quickest way to achieve herd immunity.

But as you consistently ignore, under the current regime of self isolation, more hospital beds will be available to those afflicted over the extent of it than would be the case if self isolation were to cease. 

[Solinvictus]

3 hours ago, mvdf said:

C'mon guys. Stop fighting it. It's a natural de-crowder in this already crowded planet. Make space for the next generation. Let go and feel that lovely life ebb away. 

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

― Prince Philip

[Logosone]

5 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

The way you talk is like there has never been an economic down turn ever. The simple fact of what you are posting is that you are happy to let a lot of people die because you want to keep chasing the dollar.

Okay, what we are about to see will not be a simple, normal economic down turn. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have forecast numbers of GDP shrinkage of 30% in ONE quarter. Do you have any idea what that means? Millions of people have already lost their existential basis in the service industry. In the UK the service industry makes up 80% of the economy.

 

"Morgan Stanley’s U.S. economists led by Ellen Zentner told clients in a report on Sunday that they now see American gross domestic product falling 30.1% in April-June. That will drive up unemployment to average 12.8% over the period, they said."

 

"“Economic activity has come to a near standstill in March,” the Morgan Stanley economists said. “As social distancing measures increase in a greater number of areas and as financial conditions tighten further, the negative effects on near-term GDP growth become that much greater.”

https://fortune.com/2020/03/23/morgan-stanley-goldman-sachs-estimate-coronavirus-economic-pain/

 

It may not be a problem for Bill Gates to do social distancing, it will be a massive problem for the average Joe in the US and Europe.

 

"In a Bloomberg interview on Sunday, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard predicted the unemployment rate may hit 30% in the second quarter because of shutdowns to combat the coronavirus, with an unprecedented 50% drop in GDP."

 

These are figures that are in the Great Depression ballpark. The Great Depression lasted for 10 years, was marked by suicides, increases in crime and that lasted for 10 years.

 

The only way out of the economic damage which social distancing will cause is government spending and government debt, ie spending what we don't have, and government debt was already at dangerous record levels prior to Covdi19.

 

So the only way out, economically, is to let our children's children and their children pay for bailouts for generations to come. You think of the dying but you also need to think of the living and the generations to come.

 

 

 

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Okay, what we are about to see will not be a simple, normal economic down turn. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have forecast numbers of GDP shrinkage of 30% in ONE quarter. Do you have any idea what that means? Millions of people have already lost their existential basis in the service industry. In the UK the service industry makes up 80% of the economy.

 

"Morgan Stanley’s U.S. economists led by Ellen Zentner told clients in a report on Sunday that they now see American gross domestic product falling 30.1% in April-June. That will drive up unemployment to average 12.8% over the period, they said."

 

"“Economic activity has come to a near standstill in March,” the Morgan Stanley economists said. “As social distancing measures increase in a greater number of areas and as financial conditions tighten further, the negative effects on near-term GDP growth become that much greater.”

https://fortune.com/2020/03/23/morgan-stanley-goldman-sachs-estimate-coronavirus-economic-pain/

 

It may not be a problem for Bill Gates to do social distancing, it will be a massive problem for the average Joe in the US and Europe.

 

"In a Bloomberg interview on Sunday, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard predicted the unemployment rate may hit 30% in the second quarter because of shutdowns to combat the coronavirus, with an unprecedented 50% drop in GDP."

 

These are figures that are in the Great Depression ballpark. The Great Depression lasted for 10 years, was marked by suicides, increases in crime and that lasted for 10 years.

 

The only way out of the economic damage which social distancing will cause is government spending and government debt, ie spending what we don't have, and government debt was already at dangerous record levels prior to Covdi19.

 

So the only way out, economically, is to let our children's children and their children pay for bailouts for generations to come. You think of the dying but you also need to think of the living and the generations to come.

 

 

 

Would be nice if you focused on the health of your fellow man instead of how shares are performing.

[mike787]

Do it, see what happens.

[scubascuba3]

Trump is right, the world is acting as if it's a 100% death rate, many people will now die because of the economic impact of govt measures

[Opl]

17 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No it didn't have much effect, Spain literally just added beds in large building. A critically ill person needs intensive care unit medical care. I have heard a FIRST HAND report from a Spanish doctor in Madrid crying because she has to encourage older patients to die so that slightly younger patients can use the desperately needed respirator.

 

Doctors were helpless, they felt helpless and they do not have the ammunition to fight the virus. Extra hospital beds will not change that.

 

Families feel helpless when one of their loved ones is suffocating, and they do not realize yet that the end is near without cure and vaccine, it's all about "rescucitation".

They leave it to the health care workers to achieve the impossible mission.  

   

Edited March 26, 2020 by Opl

[Logosone]

29 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Why do you obsess about speeding up herd immunity?  If 40% of the population catch the virus over 18 months, or 40% catch the virus over 6 months.  Either way 40% catch the virus!  Isn't that clear?

 

Self-isolating slows the spread of the virus.  It leads to far fewer critically ill people being denied a hospital bed.  That is a good thing.

 

Also, governments are preparing now.  Maybe not so much at the Federal level, but definitely at the local level.  Giving them more time to prepare is also a good thing.

 

If that doesn't work for you, try this:  I trust the conclusions of the Harvard study over your speculation that you post as facts.

Obviously because the sooner herd immunity is achieved the sooner the virus pandemic will end and this will all be over. Social distancing only works if it is perfect and dragged out over many months. It would mean dragging the virus pandemic out over months, for no real major benefit.

 

In addition dragging out this pandemic and its economic standstill measures risk dragging the entire world into economic ruin with every day that passes.

 

Self isolation can slow the spread of the virus, if it is perfectly done, but only for a short time, the end result will be the same millions of dead world wide. 

 

Governments are not "preparing" now, they are scrambling to play catch up and do what they should have done years ago, when the Robert Koch Insitute, Bill Gates etc were all warning of the pandemic to come. It could be predicted and it was predicted, our governments did nothing then, and they are doing too little now. It is not the easy option of social distancing that could defeat the virus, only testing, identifying and isolating the infected could do it. But that is hard work and in large countries probably impossible, so the opening up of borders and herd immunity would be much better for everyone.

 

Again, a hospital bed on its own is not going to make a big difference, complicated systems, including respirators, nurses trained in operating respirators, specialist doctors, all those things are needed for the critically ill and they can't be conjured up in a few weeks. Best to give up this hope that hospitals can deal with it, they can't, as we saw in Europe.

 

You trust the Harvard study? If you look at that study you see the entire country completely overwhelmed. I don't know where you get this forlorn hope from that extra beds will make a difference?

[bendejo]

Back to work, you lazy slaggers!  Sickness and death are just fake excuses we have to get the stock market back up before the election. 

 

Quote

Turning to President Trump's goal of beginning to lift restrictions on the economy by Easter, Rubio said that while he would "love for this to be over" by then, it would depend on the country's ability to contain the spread at that time.

Looks like Marco is growing a pair, instead of his usual bootlicking.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/marco-rubio-coronavirus-bill-unemployment-benefits

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by bendejo

[Logosone]

I get chills down my spine when I see this video of Bill Gates predicting the pandemic in 2015.

 

Just like in Germany with the Robert Koch Institute America had the minds to predict the pandemic. It could be predicted, it was predicted.

 

Just like Angela Merkel the US government did nothing. On the back of this video alone Bill Gates should be inducted into the humanitarian hall of fame. Our governments should have known. They were warned. They did nothing. It is the eternal fate of genius that it can not and shall not be heard. Nobody will listen, nobody can understand. If smart politicians can't, the person in the street even less.

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by Logosone

[heybruce]

36 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Obviously because the sooner herd immunity is achieved the sooner the virus pandemic will end and this will all be over. Social distancing only works if it is perfect and dragged out over many months. It would mean dragging the virus pandemic out over months, for no real major benefit.

 

In addition dragging out this pandemic and its economic standstill measures risk dragging the entire world into economic ruin with every day that passes.

 

Self isolation can slow the spread of the virus, if it is perfectly done, but only for a short time, the end result will be the same millions of dead world wide. 

 

Governments are not "preparing" now, they are scrambling to play catch up and do what they should have done years ago, when the Robert Koch Insitute, Bill Gates etc were all warning of the pandemic to come. It could be predicted and it was predicted, our governments did nothing then, and they are doing too little now. It is not the easy option of social distancing that could defeat the virus, only testing, identifying and isolating the infected could do it. But that is hard work and in large countries probably impossible, so the opening up of borders and herd immunity would be much better for everyone.

 

Again, a hospital bed on its own is not going to make a big difference, complicated systems, including respirators, nurses trained in operating respirators, specialist doctors, all those things are needed for the critically ill and they can't be conjured up in a few weeks. Best to give up this hope that hospitals can deal with it, they can't, as we saw in Europe.

 

You trust the Harvard study? If you look at that study you see the entire country completely overwhelmed. I don't know where you get this forlorn hope from that extra beds will make a difference?

"Social distancing only works if it is perfect and dragged out over many months. It would mean dragging the virus pandemic out over months, for no real major benefit."

 

Total BS.  Once again you express your ill informed opinion as fact.  Perfect social distancing would end the spread of the virus.  Imperfect social distancing slows the spread of the virus and allows additional time to prepare.

 

You're the one who focused specifically on beds.  As I've mentioned before, we need extra beds, extra ventilators, extra test kits, extra protective gear, etc.  Things that extra time give us a chance to acquire.  Few people subscribe to your "give up and let the dying commence" approach.

 

As I explained earlier, there are degrees of "overwhelmed".  In the 40% sick over 18 months scenario, most of the people who need a hospital bed get one.  In the 40% sick over 6 months scenario, 7 out of 8 people who need a bed won't get one.

 

I trust a Harvard study over the opinions of a poster with no qualifications on the subject.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by heybruce

[heybruce]

51 minutes ago, Logosone said:

No it didn't have much effect, Spain literally just added beds in large building. A critically ill person needs intensive care unit medical care. I have heard a FIRST HAND report from a Spanish doctor in Madrid crying because she has to encourage older patients to die so that slightly younger patients can use the desperately needed respirator.

 

Doctors were helpless, they felt helpless and they do not have the ammunition to fight the virus. Extra hospital beds will not change that.

Beds in another building have many advantages, one of which is to separate the Covid 19 patients from the patients with other problems.   Additional beds help.

 

Your anecdote about the doctor reinforces the need to slow down the disease so health care systems can prepare.

[Sujo]

42 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

 

Therefore for the US opening up the borders and going for herd immunity makes perfect sense.

 

 

Practice what you preach. Why dont you go into a hospital and ensure you get the virus. Do please come back and tell us how it goes for you and how you will then be immune.

[Logosone]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Social distancing only works if it is perfect and dragged out over many months. It would mean dragging the virus pandemic out over months, for no real major benefit."

 

Total BS.  Once again you express your ill informed opinion as fact.  Perfect social distancing would end the spread of the virus.  Imperfect social distancing slows the spread of the virus and allows additional time to prepare.

 

You're the one who focused specifically on beds.  As I've mentioned before, we need extra beds, extra ventilators, extra test kits, extra protective gear, etc.  Things that extra time give us a chance to acquire.  Few people subscribe to your "give up and let the dying commence" approach.

 

As I explained earlier, there are degrees of "overwhelmed".  In the 40% sick over 18 months scenario, most of the people who need a hospital bed get one.  In the 40% sick over 6 months scenario, 7 out of 8 people who need a bed won't get one.

 

I trust a Harvard study over the opinions of a poster with no qualifications on the subject.

 

 

Perfect social distancing would only work to slightly delay the spread of the virus, it would certainly not 'end the spread of the virus.' You need to listen to what the experts are saying:

 

"What we really need to focus on is finding those who are sick, those who have the virus, and isolate them, find their contacts and isolate them," Mike Ryan said in an interview on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/22/world/europe/22reuters-health-coronavirus-who-ryan.html

 

Social distancing will not do it, testing, identifying and isolating the infected can end the spread of the virus. That and herd immunity. Nothing else. Social distancing is only done to delay, not to end.

 

You do not understand the information you're reading.

 

It was you, not me, you kept banging on about beds, as if that were a solution. It is not. To do social distancing is to give up, it is hiding, it will accomplish nothing, because it doesn't work. People need to eat, work, travel. It's a fantasy.

 

Now, I am all for doing, namely testing, identifying and isolating, like Germany and SKorea did. However, in the US do to the size of the country, it is just not possible to do that. The next best solution is herd immunity. But the longer that is dragged out the more deaths there will be. Therefore herd immunity in the US has to be accelerated. The sooner it comes the less people will die.

 

As for the Harvard Study it ends in red all over the country, all cities will be overwhelmed if you just trust in putting beds in large buildings. That will not do a thing to end the pandemic. Herd immunity will.

 

[Logosone]

26 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Beds in another building have many advantages, one of which is to separate the Covid 19 patients from the patients with other problems.   Additional beds help.

 

Your anecdote about the doctor reinforces the need to slow down the disease so health care systems can prepare.

Simply putting a bed and isolating will not suffice, you need to make sure you test and isolate the right people, the infected. It may help if it is done right, but it will not stop the virus to just put beds. Not in a million years. Only testing, identifying and isolating or herd immunity can do that.

[Logosone]

35 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Practice what you preach. Why dont you go into a hospital and ensure you get the virus. Do please come back and tell us how it goes for you and how you will then be immune.

I'm pretty sure I've already had it and am immune. But I'll wait for the Brits to distribute their historic test, so I can be sure.

[Opl]

11 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I'm pretty sure I've already had it and am immune. But I'll wait for the Brits to distribute their historic test, so I can be sure.

And may I ask you if you avoided spreading the virus by all means or just carried on as usual ?   

[Nyezhov]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

That should thin out the number of supporters.  https://news.yahoo.com/trump-wants-packed-churches-easter-040345111.html

Would that be something to make folks happy?

[Logosone]

It sounds bad, because we all remember the many church cases when the virus was spread.

 

However, the truth is that the sooner herd immunity happens the sooner all this is over.

 

So yes, I''m happy there seems to be at least one courageous world leader who appreciates the economic impact and is not spooked by this virus.

 

If the US gets back to normal business, the economy picks up quickly, the world should be forever grateful for the actions of this one man, who went against the trend and risked his own re-election for the sake of doing the right thing.

[lust]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

However, the truth is that the sooner herd immunity happens the sooner all this is over.

Why do people keep thinking this? There is no immunity. You can contract it multiple times and is more severe the next time.

[Nyezhov]

6 minutes ago, lust said:

Why do people keep thinking this? There is no immunity. You can contract it multiple times and is more severe the next time.

I dont think that there is a consensus on that.

[Chiphigh]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

But Trump wants the churches packed on Easter.  That should thin out the number of supporters.  https://news.yahoo.com/trump-wants-packed-churches-easter-040345111.html

This is exactly the type of shameful vitriol and hatred that many leftists are all about, while mired in their hypocrisy lecturing others with their virtue signaling nonsense. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

More than 200 dead in the U.S. in just one day. Great time to lighten up.... idiot!!!!

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/25/health/coronavirus-state-actions-wednesday/index.html

 

Quote

 

Wednesday has been deadliest day in reported coronavirus deaths in US

(CNN) More than 200 deaths from Covid-19 were reported Wednesday in the United States -- a new high for fatalities recorded in a single day.
 

The dramatic spike brought the number of novel coronavirus deaths since the outbreak reached the United States in late January to at least 928. Sunday morning -- less than four days ago -- the nationwide total was 326 deaths, according to CNN data derived from state reports.
 

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Perfect social distancing would only work to slightly delay the spread of the virus, it would certainly not 'end the spread of the virus.' You need to listen to what the experts are saying:

 

"What we really need to focus on is finding those who are sick, those who have the virus, and isolate them, find their contacts and isolate them," Mike Ryan said in an interview on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/03/22/world/europe/22reuters-health-coronavirus-who-ryan.html

 

Social distancing will not do it, testing, identifying and isolating the infected can end the spread of the virus. That and herd immunity. Nothing else. Social distancing is only done to delay, not to end.

 

You do not understand the information you're reading.

 

It was you, not me, you kept banging on about beds, as if that were a solution. It is not. To do social distancing is to give up, it is hiding, it will accomplish nothing, because it doesn't work. People need to eat, work, travel. It's a fantasy.

 

Now, I am all for doing, namely testing, identifying and isolating, like Germany and SKorea did. However, in the US do to the size of the country, it is just not possible to do that. The next best solution is herd immunity. But the longer that is dragged out the more deaths there will be. Therefore herd immunity in the US has to be accelerated. The sooner it comes the less people will die.

 

As for the Harvard Study it ends in red all over the country, all cities will be overwhelmed if you just trust in putting beds in large buildings. That will not do a thing to end the pandemic. Herd immunity will.

 

"Perfect social distancing would only work to slightly delay the spread of the virus, it would certainly not 'end the spread of the virus.'"

 

Clearly you are not a numbers person.  Clearly you do not understand exponential growth.  Clearly you are not qualified to second guess the Harvard study.

 

Perfect social distancing would rapidly end the infection even if some infections were still passed on.  If 100 infected people infect less than 100 others the pandemic will die out quickly. 

 

Imperfect social distance would greatly reduce the rate of infection.  If 100 people infecting 300, those 300 infecting 900, etc, then by the fifth transmission 8100 people are infected.  If imperfect social distancing reduces the number to doubling every transmission rather than tripling, the number infected will be 1600, less than one fifth as many.   

 

By the tenth round of transmissions (approximately 5 months later, assuming each transmission round takes two weeks) the difference between tripling vs doubling is 1, 968,300 vs 51,200, almost one fourtieth the triple sum.  Where do you think the hospitals want to be in five months; dealing with 51,000 infected or almost 2 million?  Social distancing works.

 

I did not make it through the pay wall to read your source, but I assume the doctor interviewed is also a fan of social distancing.

 

"But the longer that is dragged out the more deaths there will be."

 

Geez, this is the third time I've explain this to you:  40% infected is 40% infected whether the number is reached in 6 months or 18.  The only difference is the slower infection rate allows the hospitals to treat far more of the critically ill.  The number of deaths is less, not more, if the pandemic is "dragged out".

 

You are the one who brought up the extra beds in Spain.  You are the one who ignores my posts about buying time to acquire more respirator, test kits, protective gear, etc.  You are the one banging on about beds.

 

Testing, tracing, distancing, etc. can be done in a country the size of the US.  Just focus on the hotspots.

 

I can just imaging you posting after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor:  "We are not prepared for war, the time to prepare was years ago, it's too late now.  We should just surrender.  Sure, the Japanese will execute our leaders, but they're mostly old people.  After that the rest of us can get on with our lives."

 

As for the Harvard study, read the words, don't obsess on the colors.  The difference between slow transmission and fast transmission is the difference between most of the critically ill being treated in hospital and only one eighth of the critically ill being treated in hospital.

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

More than 200 dead in the U.S. in just one day. Great time to lighten up.... idiot!!!!

 

It's more idiotic to not open the US for business, the longer herd immunity takes to achieve the worse it will be.

 

That will people die was clear and should surprise no-one.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Logosone

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

Simply putting a bed and isolating will not suffice, you need to make sure you test and isolate the right people, the infected. It may help if it is done right, but it will not stop the virus to just put beds. Not in a million years. Only testing, identifying and isolating or herd immunity can do that.

You think the doctors in Spain haven't a clue?  Ok, if that is your assumption, having new beds in another building will allow the separation of those who definitely don't have the virus from those who may have the virus.