Trump considers reopening U.S. economy despite coronavirus spread

[Logosone]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 He's one of those people who, once he has an idea lodged in his mind, will not let it be dislodged.

This exactly applies to you, heybruce. Once you have lodged the idea of 'social distancing' in your mind you will not let it be dislodged, even when a kind man on the internet shows you it is merely a belief, not based on evidence and frankly could do a lot more harm than good.

 

This applies to you.

[papa al]

On 3/24/2020 at 6:45 AM, car720 said:

What else do you call a spade, apart from a spade?

shovel

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

'"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.

You think he doesn't support life continuing as normal? Maybe you should read the whole article:

 

"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."

 

"One can only hope that, much like in 1918, life will continue. Conversely, with lockdowns of months, if not years, life largely stops, short-term and long-term consequences are entirely unknown, and billions, not just millions, of lives may be eventually at stake."

 

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/

 

Does that sound like a man who supports opening the doors to business as usual or a man who supports the religion of social distancing?

 

Once you have an idea lodged in your mind, heybruce, you really will not let it be dislodged even in the face of professors of medicine, and epidemiology telling you the lockdown is dangeorus and counter-productive.

 

Remember, since you love accreditation so highly John P.A. Ioannidis is 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.

 

I will take his analysis over some hairbrained belief in social distancing, that is totally devoid of solid evidence any day.

 

I note nobody, but nobody has provided any credible paper, from a credible source that social distancing works to end a Covid19 or any other coronavirus pandemic.

 

Please do so if you can, or accept that your social distancing religion, is just that a religion of believers without the fundamental support of solid scientific data.

[sirineou]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

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.

Isn't "Isolating" social distancing? aren't curfews social distancing? aren't travel restrictions social distancing. 

Isn't the disease transmitted person to person? In the absence of testing would it not be a good idea to put a separation between the transmitting agents until everyone is tested ?

[papa al]

In American hospitals

staff protocol has been wearing masks, gloves & hand washing

for years.

However, ~750,000 nosocomial infections occur/year;

& 70,000 die therefrom.

 

We are all going to be exposed to it.

Viruses and other infections have been thinning out the old and weak

forever.

[lannarebirth]

 

Quote

 

Exclusive: Chinese doctors say Wuhan coronavirus reinfection even deadlier

Instead of creating immunity the virus can reportedly reinfect an individual and hasten fatal heart attack

 

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3876197

 

 

[Logosone]

11 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Isn't "Isolating" social distancing? aren't curfews social distancing? aren't travel restrictions social distancing. 

Isn't the disease transmitted person to person? In the absence of testing would it not be a good idea to put a separation between the transmitting agents until everyone is tested ?

The answer lies in your question. 

 

The danger comes from the infected person. Not from the healthy person.

 

Sadly we have to accept that insufficient testing is a fact of life since our bungling, ineffective and reckless governments have not equipped us to do testing, despite many loud and clear warnings.

 

By the time 'everyone' is tested we will most likely benefit from herd immunity, because the majority of the population will already be infected, ie testing will be completed too late.

 

There are models from Oxford university that come up with figures like well over 50% of the UK population is already infected. 

 

In fact social distancing has most likely increased infection, as academics have warned, since young students and young adults are forced to move back in with their parents whom they then infect. 

 

Furthermore, the young, more resilient to the disease, have been deprived of developing immunity to the virus by the closure of schools. So when social distancing ends, as it inevitably will, those young children will be vulnerable to the virus.

 

Of course the 'danger' has to be put into perspective, for young people the risk of serious complications from Covid19 is extremely low. Even for adults, data from china shows that of those infected with Covid19 only 20% need medical attention, a smaller percentage still need to go to an icu unit, and a smaller fraction still perish due to the virus.

 

The key question then is to weigh up the danger, and how plunging the economies of the world in chaos and taking on trillions of debt for our children to repay is an adequate response to this danger.

 

I think Trump's decision to open for business as usual would be the best decision, and many academics of very high accreditation agree.

 

 

[Opl]

If we can learn from what Italian doctors warn us of

Quote " Lockdown is paramount: social distancing reduced transmission by about 60% in China. But a further peak will likely occur when restrictive measures are relaxed to avoid major economic impact. "

from the link below:

"Pandemic solutions are required for the entire population, not only for hospitals. Western health care systems have been built around the concept of patient-centered care, but an epidemic requires a change of perspective toward a concept of community-centered care. "

[sirineou]

12 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The answer lies in your question. 

 

The danger comes from the infected person. Not from the healthy person.

 

Sadly we have to accept that insufficient testing is a fact of life since our bungling, ineffective and reckless governments have not equipped us to do testing, despite many loud and clear warnings.

 

By the time 'everyone' is tested we will most likely benefit from herd immunity, because the majority of the population will already be infected, ie testing will be completed too late.

 

There are models from Oxford university that come up with figures like well over 50% of the UK population is already infected. 

 

In fact social distancing has most likely increased infection, as academics have warned, since young students and young adults are forced to move back in with their parents whom they then infect. 

 

Furthermore, the young, more resilient to the disease, have been deprived of developing immunity to the virus by the closure of schools. So when social distancing ends, as it inevitably will, those young children will be vulnerable to the virus.

 

Of course the 'danger' has to be put into perspective, for young people the risk of serious complications from Covid19 is extremely low. Even for adults, data from china shows that of those infected with Covid19 only 20% need medical attention, a smaller percentage still need to go to an icu unit, and a smaller fraction still perish due to the virus.

 

The key question then is to weigh up the danger, and how plunging the economies of the world in chaos and taking on trillions of debt for our children to repay is an adequate response to this danger.

 

I think Trump's decision to open for business as usual would be the best decision, and many academics of very high accreditation agree.

 

 

Of course the danger is from the infected person and since we don't have the testing and know who is infected , social distancing is the only viable option.

  You are the first person I have heard that thinks social distancing increases infection, in fact I did a google search "does social distancing increase virus infection " and got no return from any source claiming such. Could you please post a link to the source of your information? 

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2020 at 1:36 PM, Neeranam said:

The US economy has been due to crash. The powers that be were just waiting for a black swan event like this to enable the global financial reset.

 

It's not Trumps fault, yet those who don't like him will try to make it a political issue.

 

His incompetent reaction to the virus is his fault and him trying to restart businesses well before the virus is on the retreat is too.

[simple1]

22 minutes ago, Logosone said:

SNIP>

There are models from Oxford university that come up with figures like well over 50% of the UK population is already infected. <SNIP>

You should cease posting speculative information inferring it's fact. Link to a credible source referring to the Oxford Uni report below.

 

as infectious disease modellers and public health experts, including the Oxford team themselves, have pointed out, the model used assumptions because there was no hard data.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/mar/25/coronavirus-exposes-the-problems-and-pitfalls-of-modelling

[Logosone]

15 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

  You are the first person I have heard that thinks social distancing increases infection, in fact I did a google search "does social distancing increase virus infection " and got no return from any source claiming such. Could you please post a link to the source of your information? 

Of course, though since you didn't read the link before, I doubt you'll read it now:

 

"School closures, for example, may reduce transmission rates. But they may also backfire if children socialize anyhow, if school closure leads children to spend more time with susceptible elderly family members, if children at home disrupt their parents ability to work, and more. School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease.

 

This has been the perspective behind the different stance of the United Kingdom keeping schools open, at least until as I write this. In the absence of data on the real course of the epidemic, we don’t know whether this perspective was brilliant or catastrophic."

 

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/

 

"But as the work force is laid off en masse (our family has one adult child home for that reason already), and colleges close (we have another two young adults back home for this reason), young people of indeterminate infectious status are being sent home to huddle with their families nationwide. And because we lack widespread testing, they may be carrying the virus and transmitting it to their 50-something parents, and 70- or 80-something grandparents. If there are any clear guidelines for behavior within families — what I call “vertical interdiction” — I have not seen them.

 

Such is the collateral damage of this diffuse form of warfare, aimed at “flattening” the epidemic curve generally rather than preferentially protecting the especially vulnerable. I believe we may be ineffectively fighting the contagion even as we are causing economic collapse."

 

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

 

Where is your study that proves that social distancing successfully ends a coronavirus pandemic?  Still nobody has posted any credible evidence whatsoever.

[Logosone]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

as infectious disease modellers and public health experts, including the Oxford team themselves, have pointed out, the model used assumptions because there was no hard data.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/mar/25/coronavirus-exposes-the-problems-and-pitfalls-of-modelling

Thanks for reposting the link that I introduced into this forum.

 

Of course the Oxford scientists could not use ''hard data" because they smartly recognise there is none, unlike the social distancing rapturists who believe there is "hard data" that supports their case that social distancing ends a coronavirus pandemic.

 

However, we do have hard data from previous pandemics. Cleaned, verified, hard data, which the academics can use in conjunction with some early data for Covid19 to establish sophisticated models as to the number of infected.

 

Even Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief medical adviser for the UK has said that even though the UK has identified x cases the real number of infected is most likely x times ten or x times 20, so clearly he is using assumptions.

 

These are not just assumptions however, these are best guesses based on the hard data from previous pandemics merged with what we have from this pandemic. They are the most reliable predictions so far. 

 

Anyone who thinks the number of cases is confined to identified cases is a fool, plain and simple. It's quite obvious that the real figure is ten, twenty or many more times higher. The Oxford scientist are doing a good job at tackling this issue.

 

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Of course, though since you didn't read the link before, I doubt you'll read it now:

 

"School closures, for example, may reduce transmission rates. But they may also backfire if children socialize anyhow, if school closure leads children to spend more time with susceptible elderly family members, if children at home disrupt their parents ability to work, and more. School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease.

 

This has been the perspective behind the different stance of the United Kingdom keeping schools open, at least until as I write this. In the absence of data on the real course of the epidemic, we don’t know whether this perspective was brilliant or catastrophic."

 

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/

 

"But as the work force is laid off en masse (our family has one adult child home for that reason already), and colleges close (we have another two young adults back home for this reason), young people of indeterminate infectious status are being sent home to huddle with their families nationwide. And because we lack widespread testing, they may be carrying the virus and transmitting it to their 50-something parents, and 70- or 80-something grandparents. If there are any clear guidelines for behavior within families — what I call “vertical interdiction” — I have not seen them.

 

Such is the collateral damage of this diffuse form of warfare, aimed at “flattening” the epidemic curve generally rather than preferentially protecting the especially vulnerable. I believe we may be ineffectively fighting the contagion even as we are causing economic collapse."

 

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

 

Where is your study that proves that social distancing successfully ends a coronavirus pandemic?  Still nobody has posted any credible evidence whatsoever.

A lot "may" "could" and "if"

Keep children at school so that they they will not interact with their parents and grandparents as much ?

are they kidding?

won't these kids come home in the afternoon ?

and wont these kids have an infinitely higher chance of contracting the disease at school and bringing it home when they do?    

[lannarebirth]

39 minutes ago, Opl said:

If we can learn from what Italian doctors warn us of

Quote " Lockdown is paramount: social distancing reduced transmission by about 60% in China. But a further peak will likely occur when restrictive measures are relaxed to avoid major economic impact. "

from the link below:

"Pandemic solutions are required for the entire population, not only for hospitals. Western health care systems have been built around the concept of patient-centered care, but an epidemic requires a change of perspective toward a concept of community-centered care. "

 

The segment with Bill Gates is very good:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/app-news-section/full-coronavirus-town-hall-march-26-2020-app/index.html

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

A lot "may" "could" and "if"

Keep children at school so that they they will not interact with their parents and grandparents as much ?

are they kidding?

won't these kids come home in the afternoon ?

and wont these kids have an infinitely higher chance of contracting the disease at school and bringing it home when they do?    

Well, I'm afraid in the absence of hard data, since our totally unprepared bungling and incompetent governments have not provided the means to do mass testing, words such as 'may' 'could' and 'if' are very sensible qualifiers doctors and lawyers would use as a matter of course.

 

Kids do come home, but only due to social distancing are children from non-essential workers deemed unworthy of care, so those children may well be looked after by a grandparent, when without social distancing that would never have been the case because the grandparent lives in a different house.

 

The idea of course is that the young, who are well known to be largely resilient to Covid19, should develop herd immunity as that would protect them later on. If schools are closed they may not develop such immunity and are vulnerable.

 

Again, the social distancing extremists have not thought this through.

[cleopatra2]

35 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Of course, though since you didn't read the link before, I doubt you'll read it now:

 

"School closures, for example, may reduce transmission rates. But they may also backfire if children socialize anyhow, if school closure leads children to spend more time with susceptible elderly family members, if children at home disrupt their parents ability to work, and more. School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease.

 

This has been the perspective behind the different stance of the United Kingdom keeping schools open, at least until as I write this. In the absence of data on the real course of the epidemic, we don’t know whether this perspective was brilliant or catastrophic."

 

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/

 

"But as the work force is laid off en masse (our family has one adult child home for that reason already), and colleges close (we have another two young adults back home for this reason), young people of indeterminate infectious status are being sent home to huddle with their families nationwide. And because we lack widespread testing, they may be carrying the virus and transmitting it to their 50-something parents, and 70- or 80-something grandparents. If there are any clear guidelines for behavior within families — what I call “vertical interdiction” — I have not seen them.

 

Such is the collateral damage of this diffuse form of warfare, aimed at “flattening” the epidemic curve generally rather than preferentially protecting the especially vulnerable. I believe we may be ineffectively fighting the contagion even as we are causing economic collapse."

 

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

 

Where is your study that proves that social distancing successfully ends a coronavirus pandemic?  Still nobody has posted any credible evidence whatsoever.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32027585/

You may find this one of interest

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19400970/

Edited March 27, 2020 by cleopatra2

[simple1]

26 minutes ago, Logosone said:

These are not just assumptions however, these are best guesses

LOL

[cleopatra2]

37 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Well, I'm afraid in the absence of hard data, since our totally unprepared bungling and incompetent governments have not provided the means to do mass testing, words such as 'may' 'could' and 'if' are very sensible qualifiers doctors and lawyers would use as a matter of course.

 

Kids do come home, but only due to social distancing are children from non-essential workers deemed unworthy of care, so those children may well be looked after by a grandparent, when without social distancing that would never have been the case because the grandparent lives in a different house.

 

The idea of course is that the young, who are well known to be largely resilient to Covid19, should develop herd immunity as that would protect them later on. If schools are closed they may not develop such immunity and are vulnerable.

 

Again, the social distancing extremists have not thought this through.

From the latest hard data

 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/25/science.abb4218

[Logosone]

37 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32027585/

You may find this one of interest

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19400970/

Thanks, I note these deal with influenza not Coronaviruses.

 

I also note that the best one can hope for with influenza viruses is a rather small reduction in transmission. 

 

All the objections to social distancing however which academics have raised in terms of overwhelming hospitals even more due to dragging out the impact are still concerns. As is the gigantic and catastrophic economic impact.

 

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/

 

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

[Logosone]

8 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

From the latest hard data

 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/25/science.abb4218

Now, THIS is more like it.

 

This is what we're talking about. 

 

"Initial analysis suggests that the Wuhan cordon sanitaire resulted in an average delay of COVID-19 spread to other cities of 3 days (3)"

 

"The travel ban coincides with increased testing capacity across provinces in China. An alternative hypothesis is that the observed epidemiological patterns outside Wuhan are the result of increased testing capacity."

 

"Here, we show that travel restrictions are particularly useful in the early stage of an outbreak when it is confined to a certain area that acts as a major source. However, travel restrictions may be less effective once the outbreak is more widespread. The combination of interventions implemented in China were clearly successful in mitigating spread and reducing local transmission of COVID-19, although in this work it was not possible to definitively determine the impact of each intervention. Much further work is required to determine how to balance optimally the expected positive effect on public health with the negative impact on freedom of movement, the economy, and society at large.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/25/science.abb4218

 

Okay, so what we have here is a 3 day delay in spread thanks to isolation of a whole city.

 

The authors say in the very early stages, yes, travel restrictions are useful, however once the outbreak is widespread, which is of course our scenario, then it is not so useful.

 

They also admit that much work is needed and hardly any data exists.

 

In particular this paper in no way address the effects of the kind of social distancing we are doing in the west, but rather analyses the effect of travel in China, which is not quite the same thing.

 

Still this one is closest we have to a study on social distancing.

 

It's not exactly iron-clad data on which to base the economic destruction of the western world, risk overwhelming hospitals with non-coronavirus diseases and impair the lives of our children.

[cleopatra2]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Now, THIS is more like it.

 

This is what we're talking about. 

 

"Initial analysis suggests that the Wuhan cordon sanitaire resulted in an average delay of COVID-19 spread to other cities of 3 days (3)"

 

"The travel ban coincides with increased testing capacity across provinces in China. An alternative hypothesis is that the observed epidemiological patterns outside Wuhan are the result of increased testing capacity."

 

"Here, we show that travel restrictions are particularly useful in the early stage of an outbreak when it is confined to a certain area that acts as a major source. However, travel restrictions may be less effective once the outbreak is more widespread. The combination of interventions implemented in China were clearly successful in mitigating spread and reducing local transmission of COVID-19, although in this work it was not possible to definitively determine the impact of each intervention. Much further work is required to determine how to balance optimally the expected positive effect on public health with the negative impact on freedom of movement, the economy, and society at large.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/25/science.abb4218

 

Okay, so what we have here is a 3 day delay in spread thanks to isolation of a whole city.

 

The authors say in the very early stages, yes, travel restrictions are useful, however once the outbreak is widespread, which is of course our scenario, then it is not so useful.

 

They also admit that much work is needed and hardly any data exists.

 

In particular this paper in no way address the effects of the kind of social distancing we are doing in the west, but rather analyses the effect of travel in China, which is not quite the same thing.

 

Still this one is closest we have to a study on social distancing.

 

It's not exactly iron-clad data on which to base the economic destruction of the western world, risk overwhelming hospitals with non-coronavirus diseases and impair the lives of our children.

Ok

Iron clad data from the US

Hospitilisation age groups 

Age group 20 to 44 years hospitalization 14 to 20 %

Age group 45 to 54 hospitalization 21 to 28 %

 

Allowing the virus free reign is going to hospitilize somewhat 20% of the 20 to 54 age group .

 

 

[rabas]

13 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Ok

Iron clad data from the US

Hospitilisation age groups 

Age group 20 to 44 years hospitalization 14 to 20 %

Age group 45 to 54 hospitalization 21 to 28 %

 

Allowing the virus free reign is going to hospitilize somewhat 20% of the 20 to 54 age group .

You don't provide a reference. Are you sure you are interpreting the percentages correctly?

 

If 20% of all hospitalizations are 20 to 44 yo and,

If 28% of all hospitalizations are 45 to 54 yo then:

free ranging of 20-54 yo is  = 48%.

Edited March 27, 2020 by rabas

[Logosone]

16 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Ok

Iron clad data from the US

Hospitilisation age groups 

Age group 20 to 44 years hospitalization 14 to 20 %

Age group 45 to 54 hospitalization 21 to 28 %

 

Allowing the virus free reign is going to hospitilize somewhat 20% of the 20 to 54 age group .

 

 

And what would allowing social distancing to continue and spreading out over a length of time do when hospital care is compromised for other life-threatening diseases, operations cancelled, beds outsourced due to ramping up beds and focusing on Covid19, what would that do to the 98 percentage of the hospital population that is not in there for Covid19 but has other life threatening conditions?

[jcsmith]

4 hours ago, Logosone said:

"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."

And this is where it is narrow sighted. For one it presumes that the hospitals are going to be overwhelmed with or without social distancing. Second it pretty much writes off everyone who gets sick in next month or so because the hospitals would be so badly overwhelmed they'd just have no way to treat them. People will have strokes, heart attacks during that time too.

The important bit is the "Yet if " that at the start. The entire article is built on this presumption. And it directly contrasts with what most medical experts believe. Now he is certainly entitled to his opinion. Maybe in his mind he's sounding the alarm and trying to help. But it's just one person's opinion, and it is a fringe one.

Edited March 27, 2020 by jcsmith

[Logosone]

If only one, just one world leader had thought "what if" what may happen, after all the many, many warnings governments have had about coronavirus, and had subsequently thought through the possibilities and risks. that country would have been prepared and would not be in this situation.

 

Unfortunately, unlike this highly trained Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and statistics those world leaders did not consider the possibilities of "What if".

 

The possibilities which this Stanford Professor contemplates are of course very reasonable. Hospitals will be overwhelmed and are already overwhelmed. Doctors do not have any therapy, vaccine, not even basic supplies to combat this virus. Let alone test-kits.

 

Since 98% of people will be in hospital due to other conditions it is perfectly reasonably to consider the effect which ramping up beds for coronavirus, focusing on that issue will have. Obviously beds will requisitioned for Covid19. Operations will be cancelled. Care will be compromised. Therefore dragging out this state of shock will make things worse for non-Covid19 patients. If doctors can not do a lot for Covid19 patients that's a big price to pay for very little.

 

Of course that's not just a single opinion, there are many medical professionals who share this view that 'flattening the curve' may not achieve what it is meant to achieve, and can in fact cause a large number of serious issues.

 

 

[jcsmith]

You don't think those world leaders have plenty of input from the top medical professionals? I'd guess that many of them are not okay with the idea of sacrificing thousands of lives.

[Logosone]

Whether they're okay with it or not, thousands of lives will be lost in the next few weeks. 

 

If those politicians had listened to medical professionals in 2012 and prepared this would not have happened.

 

Had they acted quickly in January it may not have happened.

 

The governments of the world have let us down. The virus has won. The writing is on the wall. We will just have to wait for herd immunity. So the best is to get back to  opening America up for business.

 

If they can not save the people, they can at least save the economic existence of the majority who will survive.

 

 

[cleopatra2]

5 hours ago, rabas said:

You don't provide a reference. Are you sure you are interpreting the percentages correctly?

 

If 20% of all hospitalizations are 20 to 44 yo and,

If 28% of all hospitalizations are 45 to 54 yo then:

free ranging of 20-54 yo is  = 48%.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/coronavirus-young-people-hospitalized-covid-19-chart/

 

The question would be how many of this age group will fully recover without access or reduced access to hospital treatment .

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Logosone said:

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.

I'll explain again:  Social distancing is what you do until you have the resources to test widely.  Whenever I mention social distancing without also mentioning testing you insist I'm arguing that social distancing alone is sufficient. 

 

Social distancing slows down the spread of the virus.  I never argued it will stop the pandemic, it will just give us more time to prepare.  I've been consistent in that.  I've also never argued that social distancing will stop the pandemic.  I've explained the results of the Harvard study to you in great detail, and always described how social distancing slows the spread and why that is a good thing.

 

A Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs prediction isn't data.  The economy will definitely contract, with or without social distancing.  how much remains to be seen.

 

Your predictions that slowing the spread of the virus will result in more deaths are definitely conjectures, they don't rise to the level of hypothetical.  To find evidence social distancing works you only need to look:

 

One of the curious little mysteries of the coronavirus pandemic is why Japan’s cases have increased so slowly. The country hasn’t implemented the widespread testing of South Korea or the draconian lockdown of China. Yet the epidemic has spread only slowly there; the country has fewer than 1,000 cases as of this writing, lower than tiny Denmark with less than a 20th of the population....Japan is simply very good at social distancing--avoiding groups of people and keeping physical distance from strangers."   https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-03-19/social-distancing-greatly-slows-spread-of-coronavirus

 

St. Louis closed the schools about a day in advance of the (Spanish flu) epidemic spiking, for 143 days. Pittsburgh closed 7 days after the peak and only for 53 days. And the death rate for the epidemic in St. Louis was roughly one-third as high as in Pittsburgh. These things work.  https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/does-closing-schools-slow-spread-novel-coronavirus#

 

Of course there is also the common sense fact that person to person transmission will be slowed down with fewer person to person encounters.