Trump considers reopening U.S. economy despite coronavirus spread

[Logosone]

13 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

 

The people that we need to protect the most are those who potentially have a long, productive, and hopefully happy lives ahead of them. These are people like transplant patients; those with autoimmune conditions; people who need urgent operations for life threatening (But not shortening) acute conditions  like appendicitis; cancer patients for whom there is a real prospect of a cure (significantly more of them nowadays), etc etc.

An overwhelmed health service is going to be forced to neglect many of these.

Who is going to decide for whom among them, the bell will toll?

 

Exactly what I was thinking. And those are exactly the people who are suffering NOW because hospitals are understaffed and undersupplied because of the extreme government self-isolation rules (taken in the absence of any sound data). Operations are cancelled everywhere because the lockdown has caused public transport reductions and people can't get in to work, or won't go to work because they're terrified by scaremongers.

 

And the worst is that the flattening the curve idea (based on no solid figures whatsoever) will make matters far worse as hospitals try to gear up for coronavirus exclusively and instead of a short shock will be subject to a  prolongued and dragged out period of focusing on coronavirus . The outsourcing of beds will lead to compromised care levels.

 

A fast short shock would certainly be easier for hospital staff and would most likely reduce the chances of  the pepole you list above suffering from cancelled operations and compromised care.

 

[Logosone]

10 hours ago, jcsmith said:

You don't think there is a difference between being slightly overloaded and being massively overloaded? Once you reach that massive overload many more people will die, and not only people with Covid-19. In the long run the same amount of people may become infected with the virus sure. But the rate of that infection and how many people are dealing with it at a single time is very important.

My personal view is that US hospitals will shortly not be 'slightly overloaded' but 'massively overloaded' anyway.

 

Now, the difference will be if the US through social distancing rules drags out the shock to the hospitals or allows a short sharp shock. If the hospitals are unable to deal with Covid19 issues, as looks likely, and on top of that the shock to hospitals due to Covid19 is prolongued and dragged it could perfectly well happen that:

 

" the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period."

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

We just don't know the rate of infection, because the NHS and others are not testing for the virus enough. It may be that such large numbers are already infected that herd immunity will come much earlier than most people think.

[Logosone]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

A long term problem with the herd immunity notion is that no one knows how long immunity will last. Different corona viruses elicit immune responses of differing duration. For the  common cold coronaviruses, immunity lasts 1-3 years. For the SARS virus, 8-10 years. For the MERS virus, 1-3 years.

Can You Become Immune to the Coronavirus?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/health/coronavirus-immunity-antibodies.html

But the key thing is that there IS immunity. Barring the odd exceptions.

 

One would certainly hope that vaccines will come in due course to deal with future mutations of Covid19.

 

Though perfect immunity to Covid19, like with influenza, will most likely not be achieved.

 

There is hope of course hope that the rate of mutation in Covid19 is much slower than for influenza viruses. So far few mutations have happened, all without consequence.

 

In addition it should not be forgotten that mutations can work in our favour as well. The SARS virus had a mutation wherein it lost part of its genome which affected transmission, which contributed to the SARS virus disappearing early.

 

So mutations need to be a bad thing.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Logosone

[metisdead]

Off topic deflection posts about statistics from Europe etc. and the replies have been removed.

 

Some inflammatory posts and replies have been removed.

[Logosone]

15 hours ago, jcsmith said:

The argument that just letting everyone get it is the best approach is basically saying okay let's voluntarily let more people die so the ones who are left behind have a better economy. Why not just let everyone get it at once instead of "dragging it out"? Because the hospitals are already being overwhelmed with social distancing. They would be completely overwhelmed without them. And overwhelmed hospitals equate to a higher mortality rate. A lot of people are being pretty quick to volunteer the lives of others.

What you do not seem to realise is that social distancing greatly contributes to hospitals being overwhelmed and understaffed, as public transport is reduced and staff do not show up to work due to extreme social distancing rules.

 

In any event by their own accounts US hospitals will be completely overwhelmed, and already are. The longer this state of shock for hospitals is dragged out the greater the effects will be on other critical non-coronavirus patients;

 

" the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period."

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

So a higher mortality rate could result because of the "flattening the curve" idea, which would drag out the period hospitals are overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.

 

So actually people like you, who support and advocate for the 'flattening-the-curve' and extreme social distancing could be the ones who are "volunteering lives", albeit out of ignorance.

 

After all we have no solid data and the 'flattening the curve' idea was put in place without solid data.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

American red cross warns of blood shortage caused by social distancing:

 

https://www.kcur.org/post/social-distancing-leads-blood-shortage#stream/0

 

The people who are implementing the social distancing rules have not thought the effect through and have adopted the 'flattening the curve' idea in the absence of hard and solid evidence.

 

Decisions are being rushed. And when decisions are rushed big mistakes are made.

 

The more one looks at this the more the conclusion is near that opening up for normal business, as Trump suggests, would be better for everyone, including hospitals.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Logosone

[Langsuan Man]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

The people who are implementing the social distancing rules have not thought the effect through and have adopted the 'flattening the curve' idea in the absence of hard and solid evidence.

They have the evidence, backed by studies both in Italy and in the US,  that social distancing is the only way to flatten the curve but  you don't want to be confused with the facts

 

But would rather listen to the businessman who has had more bankruptcies than any other self proclaimed billionaires on earth but he had an Uncle who was a genius at MIT so that is what counts 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Langsuan Man

[metisdead]

A post with a trolling representation of Mr. Trump's name has been removed. 

[sukhumvitneon]

2 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

This is precisely the attitude and blather that will ensure another 4 years. 

 

The irrational emotional hatred makes you look silly, but amusing. 

 

Can't you just move past it and comment on the topic? 

Trump may own a ton of real estate all around the world, but he's living rent free in these users' heads

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

 Nobody is volunteering lives. A virus is killing and will continue to kill people aged over 80. The average age of coronavirus fatalities in Italy and Germany was 81. These unfortunate people would most likely have died of other causes at their advanced age in any event.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that the 'flattening the curve'  idea is one taken on poor to non-existant data. It will probably cost more lives than restoring normal service in hospitals:

 

"Flattening the curve to avoid overwhelming the health system is conceptually sound — in theory. A visual that has become viral in media and social media shows how flattening the curve reduces the volume of the epidemic that is above the threshold of what the health system can handle at any moment.

 

Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity.

 

One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health. Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric. At a minimum, we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making."

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

John P.A. Ioannidis is professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine, professor by courtesy of statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) at Stanford University.

Funny that you mention "poor to non-existent data".  Dr Ioannidis's conjectures are base on the same, and not supported by the medical community at large.

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

What you do not seem to realise is that social distancing greatly contributes to hospitals being overwhelmed and understaffed, as public transport is reduced and staff do not show up to work due to extreme social distancing rules.

 

In any event by their own accounts US hospitals will be completely overwhelmed, and already are. The longer this state of shock for hospitals is dragged out the greater the effects will be on other critical non-coronavirus patients;

 

" the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period."

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

So a higher mortality rate could result because of the "flattening the curve" idea, which would drag out the period hospitals are overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.

 

So actually people like you, who support and advocate for the 'flattening-the-curve' and extreme social distancing could be the ones who are "volunteering lives", albeit out of ignorance.

 

After all we have no solid data and the 'flattening the curve' idea was put in place without solid data.

You are milking this one source who seems to hypothetically agree with you for all it's worth. 

 

Social distancing does not contribute to hospitals being overwhelmed.  Social distancing contributes to hospitals being less overwhelmed. 

 

As explained before, and in the Harvard study, it is better to have hospitals needing 74% more beds over 18 months, during which time hospital capacity can be increased, than needing 700% more beds, an eight-fold increase, over six months.  Capacity increases can't come close to matching the need in that scenario.  https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/covid-hospitals

 

If you run the numbers, you will also see that being 74% under capacity over 18 months results in far fewer people not receiving treatment than being 700% under capacity over six months.  I won't explain the math, you've convinced me you're not a math person.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

American red cross warns of blood shortage caused by social distancing:

 

https://www.kcur.org/post/social-distancing-leads-blood-shortage#stream/0

 

The people who are implementing the social distancing rules have not thought the effect through and have adopted the 'flattening the curve' idea in the absence of hard and solid evidence.

 

Decisions are being rushed. And when decisions are rushed big mistakes are made.

 

The more one looks at this the more the conclusion is near that opening up for normal business, as Trump suggests, would be better for everyone, including hospitals.

"opening up for normal business", which is what Trump advocated for a while (he changes frequently, I'm not sure what he advocates now) will definitely result in far more deaths.  Granted, it would guarantee that Trump loses the upcoming election, but that is too high a price to pay.

[Logosone]

49 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

They have the evidence, backed by studies both in Italy and in the US,  that social distancing is the only way to flatten the curve but  you don't want to be confused with the facts

 

But would rather listen to the businessman who has had more bankruptcies than any other self proclaimed billionaires on earth but he had an Uncle who was a genius at MIT so that is what counts 

Would you be so kind to back that statement up with the links to the studies you mention?

 

That would be very helpful.

 

Because in the absence of hard data as to the number of infected it seems that social distancing is more of a religion, a belief, rather than a policy based on solid data.

[Langsuan Man]

13 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Would you be so kind to back that statement up with the links to the studies you mention?

 

That would be very helpful.

 

Because in the absence of hard data as to the number of infected it seems that social distancing is more of a religion, a belief, rather than a policy based on solid data.

Here since Google seems impossible for you to use:

Quote

https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/health/2020/03/24/coronavirus-social-distancing-fever-charting-kinsa/2897136001/

In case you can't get it:

 

Quote

"When you shut down schools and businesses, you are breaking the chain of infections," said Kinsa CEO Inder Singh. "The data are showing it is working and the clusters of fever we were seeing are leveling off and diminishing within days." 

Flu-related illness in California's Santa Clara County, for example, have dropped by more than 60% since a March 17 shelter-in-place order. At the same time, Miami-Dade County's level of flulike illness has been going up. State and local governments in Northern California took earlier and more aggressive action than in South Florida.

Do you want the rest of the results ? : About 86,200,000 results (0.64 seconds) 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Langsuan Man

[Logosone]

37 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Funny that you mention "poor to non-existent data".  Dr Ioannidis's conjectures are base on the same, and not supported by the medical community at large.

 

 

This medical professional seems to agree with Stanford Professor Dr Ionannidis:

 

Dr. Katz is president of True Health Initiative and the founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.

 

"I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing.html

 

Maybe you, "heybruce" could supply the solid data which proves social distancing works?

 

Since these Standford and Yale academics say it does not exist?

 

 

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Here since Google seems impossible for you to use:

In case you can't get it:

 

 

You are joking, I hope?

 

What you just posted is not an academic study at all. 

 

This article from the Naples Daily news refers to company's survey with thermal scanners.

 

This survey has not even been independently reviewed.

 

If this is the data social distancing is based on, it's laughable. 

 

What Kinsa is doing is looking at temperature data and not at Covid19. 

 

Is that all you have? Seriously? So it is more of a belief then, no hard, iron-clad study or data.

 

Good to know.

[Logosone]

52 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Social distancing does not contribute to hospitals being overwhelmed.  Social distancing contributes to hospitals being less overwhelmed. 

That's just a belief you have. It is unfortunately not backed up by academics with solid data. In fact reputable academics strongly disagree with your unsubstantiated belief;

 

"Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity."

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

So it looks like social distancing does contribute to hospitals being overwhelmed.

[Opl]

25 minutes ago, Logosone said:

That's just a belief you have. It is unfortunately not backed up by academics with solid data. In fact reputable academics strongly disagree with your unsubstantiated belief;

 

"Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity."

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

So it looks like social distancing does contribute to hospitals being overwhelmed.

this is how social distancing slows the spread: this single match saved the others  

Edited March 27, 2020 by Opl

[Langsuan Man]

OK, will you believe the Washington Examiner, a definitely Pro Trump rag:

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/this-coronavirus-chart-shows-why-social-distancing-is-necessary

 

Or MSN

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/from-new-york-city-to-st-augustine-fever-charting-shows-social-distancing-is-breaking-the-chain-of-coronavirus-infections/ar-BB11Flcb

 

Or 

How about the Center for Disease Control

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0995-f1

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

This medical professional seems to agree with Stanford Professor Dr Ionannidis:

 

Dr. Katz is president of True Health Initiative and the founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.

 

"I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing.html

 

Maybe you, "heybruce" could supply the solid data which proves social distancing works?

 

Since these Standford and Yale academics say it does not exist?

 

 

A speculative opinion piece behind a paywall, not backed up by data.

 

Data is still being collected.  Langsuan Man has provided links showing preliminary results.  Extreme social distancing measures in China worked very well.  Less extreme measures will work less well, but will make it easier for health care systems to work.

 

The Harvard study shows analytically how and why social distancing works.  Your links to speculative opinions unsupported by data are not convincing.

[Throatwobbler]

16 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

OK, will you believe the Washington Examiner, a definitely Pro Trump rag:

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/this-coronavirus-chart-shows-why-social-distancing-is-necessary

 

Or MSN

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/from-new-york-city-to-st-augustine-fever-charting-shows-social-distancing-is-breaking-the-chain-of-coronavirus-infections/ar-BB11Flcb

 

Or 

How about the Center for Disease Control

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0995-f1

You are wasting your time. He is convinced that he knows better than the overwhelming majority of medical experts. It is clear that he favors the dollar over human lives.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Throatwobbler

[jcsmith]

25 minutes ago, Logosone said:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

So it looks like social distancing does contribute to hospitals being overwhelmed.

That article doesn't conclude that social distancing contributes to hospitals being overwhelmed, nor is it an accurate reflection of what the vast majority of academics believe. It provides a lot of speculation to try to prove its narrow sighted conclusion. It's basic idea is that if the health system is overrun people are going to die anyway so lets just get it out of the way now. 

It seems to ignore the impact of hospitals being overloaded. There is a reason that the mortality rate in Italy is over 10%, and its at 7.5% in Spain. Certainly I think its fair to say many people who have the virus are not diagnosed as having it, especially the less serious or asymptomatic cases. But those are also a real world example of what happens when hospitals become overwhelmed. That's not to mention the effect of non-covid deaths as a result of them.

[Logosone]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Data is still being collected.  Langsuan Man has provided links showing preliminary results.  Extreme social distancing measures in China worked very well.  Less extreme measures will work less well, but will make it easier for health care systems to work.

 

The Harvard study shows analytically how and why social distancing works.  Your links to speculative opinions unsupported by data are not convincing.

Langsuan Man has provided a link to the Naples Daily News, which reports a view from a US company that collects thermal scanning data. Their survey was not independently reviewed. It is not an academic paper. That is in no way the iron-clad data that academics from Stanford and Yale have rightly lamented we do not have.

 

I will have a look shortly at his other "data", which I hope is a lot better than the link to the Naples Daily news and the survey from a company that was not independently reviewed.

 

Extreme social distancing did not work very well in China at all. By the time the Chinese had isolated Wuhan 50 per cent of the population had already left. If it worked so well in China why did the other Chinese cities get infected after Wuhan was put in isolation? Why did the rest of the world get infected if social isolation worked so great?

 

The real reason why China got its pandemic under control, maybe, is that they did mass-testing, identified and isolated the carrier. Of course social distancing extremists will take credit for causing the stemming of cases, in the complete absence of evidence that it was social distancing that was the cause.

 

The Harvard study absolutely does not show that social distancing works, it is not concerned with that, it is concerned with the preparedness of US hospitals. And that is a long horror list of obviously unprepared hospitals. To say that study proves social distancing works looks like purposeful misrepresentation of the truth.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

33 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

OK, will you believe the Washington Examiner, a definitely Pro Trump rag:

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/this-coronavirus-chart-shows-why-social-distancing-is-necessary

 

Or MSN

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/from-new-york-city-to-st-augustine-fever-charting-shows-social-distancing-is-breaking-the-chain-of-coronavirus-infections/ar-BB11Flcb

 

Or 

How about the Center for Disease Control

 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0995-f1

You have grandly proclaimed that those who put into effect social distancing have the iron clad data and studies that prove that it works, despite academics from Yale and Stanford saying that data is not available.

 

Then you have the nerve to post an article from the Naples Daily news referring to a company that sells thermal scanners and did a survey, which is not independently reviewed. To cap it all, you then merely send another link quoting USA Today, which merely refers to the same temperature scanner company survey, which was not independently reviewed.

 

It's frankly laughable. The last link from the CDC doesn't even deal with Covid19 but with influenza.

 

The first link is again a newspaper article not a scientific paper with iron-clad data.

 

So basically you, the social distancing extremists, have nothing. NOTHING in the way of iron clad solid scientific data WHATSOEVER.

 

We are all so screwed if this social distancing continues. It's worse than I thought.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Logosone

[Jingthing]

Social distancing is just one part of an overall program. The idea isn't to stop the spread anytime soon but to flatten the curve of exponential increase so that health systems aren't overwhelmed with a huge volume of patients at once resulting in many more deaths than were necessary. Yes a certain amount of deaths are inevitable from this but we have the power to reduce that number.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Jingthing

[Logosone]

18 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

That article doesn't conclude that social distancing contributes to hospitals being overwhelmed, nor is it an accurate reflection of what the vast majority of academics believe. It provides a lot of speculation to try to prove its narrow sighted conclusion. It's basic idea is that if the health system is overrun people are going to die anyway so lets just get it out of the way now. 

It seems to ignore the impact of hospitals being overloaded. There is a reason that the mortality rate in Italy is over 10%, and its at 7.5% in Spain. Certainly I think its fair to say many people who have the virus are not diagnosed as having it, especially the less serious or asymptomatic cases. But those are also a real world example of what happens when hospitals become overwhelmed. That's not to mention the effect of non-covid deaths as a result of them.

Clearly you do not understand what the article is saying. The author, is John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine, professor by courtesy of statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) at Stanford University.

 

What he is saying is that in fact social distancing and flattening the curve could make matters a lot worse, because rather than provide a short sharp shock to the health system, it would provide a long and drawn out period when people will die because medical care is compromised in many other areas that cause deaths among a hospital's population:

 

"Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity."

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

It is not ignoring the impact on overloaded hospitals, it is saying that you, and people like you, ie other social distancing rapturists, are possibly going to cause a much worse overloading of the hospitals. 

 

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Langsuan Man has provided a link to the Naples Daily News, which reports a view from a US company that collects thermal scanning data. Their survey was not independently reviewed. It is not an academic paper. That is in no way the iron-clad data that academics from Stanford and Yale have rightly lamented we do not have.

 

I will have a look shortly at his other "data", which I hope is a lot better than the link to the Naples Daily news and the survey from a company that was not independently reviewed.

 

Extreme social distancing did not work very well in China at all. By the time the Chinese had isolated Wuhan 50 per cent of the population had already left. If it worked so well in China why did the other Chinese cities get infected after Wuhan was put in isolation? Why did the rest of the world get infected if social isolation worked so great?

 

The real reason why China got its pandemic under control, maybe, is that they did mass-testing, identified and isolated the carrier. Of course social distancing extremists will take credit for causing the stemming of cases, in the complete absence of evidence that it was social distancing that was the cause.

 

The Harvard study absolutely does not show that social distancing works, it is not concerned with that, it is concerned with the preparedness of US hospitals. And that is a long horror list of obviously unprepared hospitals. To say that study proves social distancing works looks like purposeful misrepresentation of the truth.

Social distancing did not work in China, yet three months after the virus was identified China has few or no new cases. 

 

Like the rest of the world, China had to do a lock down first then do testing once the virus was identified and test kits available.  That is what other countries are doing, or preparing to do, along with the social distancing.

 

There are studies showing social distancing will slow the spread of the virus.  There are examples where social distancing has slowed the spread of the virus.  There is no data showing the economic cost of social distancing exceeds the economic and human cost of letting the virus go unchecked.

 

All you have presented are two opinion pieces and one article that should have been labeled an opinion piece.  All had nothing but hypothetical what-if's unsupported by data.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Social distancing is just one part of an overall program. The idea isn't to stop the spread anytime soon but to flatten the curve of exponential increase so that health systems aren't overwhelmed with a huge volume of patients at once resulting in many more deaths than were necessary. Yes a certain amount of deaths are inevitable from this but we have the power to reduce that number.

That has been explained to Logosone many times in many different ways.  He's one of those people who, once he has an idea lodged in his mind, will not let it be dislodged.

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Clearly you do not understand what the article is saying. The author, is John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical data science at Stanford University School of Medicine, professor by courtesy of statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) at Stanford University.

 

What he is saying is that in fact social distancing and flattening the curve could make matters a lot worse, because rather than provide a short sharp shock to the health system, it would provide a long and drawn out period when people will die because medical care is compromised in many other areas that cause deaths among a hospital's population:

 

"Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity."

 

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

 

It is not ignoring the impact on overloaded hospitals, it is saying that you, and people like you, ie other social distancing rapturists, are possibly going to cause a much worse overloading of the hospitals. 

 

'"Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity."'

 

Speculation ending with a call for more data.  That is hardly the definitive support for returning to business as usual that you present it as.

[Logosone]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Social distancing did not work in China, yet three months after the virus was identified China has few or no new cases. 

 

Like the rest of the world, China had to do a lock down first then do testing once the virus was identified and test kits available.  That is what other countries are doing, or preparing to do, along with the social distancing.

 

There are studies showing social distancing will slow the spread of the virus.  There are examples where social distancing has slowed the spread of the virus.  There is no data showing the economic cost of social distancing exceeds the economic and human cost of letting the virus go unchecked.

 

All you have presented are two opinion pieces and one article that should have been labeled an opinion piece.  All had nothing but hypothetical what-if's unsupported by data.

Nobody is disputing that China has fewer new cases, what has to be established by you, with solid data, is that it was social distancing which caused this result, and not testing, identifying and isolating the carriers. You are the one who claims that social distancing works so great, that it was down to social distancing that there are fewer cases in China. I am telling you that the reason China now has fewer cases is that they are testing, identifying and isolating the infected. THAT is the reason why China has managed to keep new cases low. Not social distancing. 

 

It stands to reason that isolating the healthy from the healthy is COMPLETELY useless. Only identifying and isolating the carriers is useful.

 

You claim that there are studies that show that social distancing slows the spread of the virus, where are the studies that show that social distancing ends pandemics like this Covid 19 pandemic? Where are they? Can you please link to these studies? You say they exist after all?

 

There is plenty of data that shows that the impact of social distancing is catastrophic. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs predict a GDP contraction of 30% for the USA in ONE quarter. So please don't post nonsense.

 

What I have posted were hypotheticals? Well I have news for you, your entire social distancing religion is based on hypotheticals, and nothing more. It's a belief like a UFO religion.