Trump considers reopening U.S. economy despite coronavirus spread

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Logosone said:

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.

Social distancing, in addition to being part of the solution everywhere infection rates have been slowed, is also simple common sense.  Person to person transmission is slowed down by fewer person to person encounters.

[heybruce]

6 hours 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.

You also have no hard data.  You are speculating about how social distancing might increase the spread of the virus, and you are not convincing anyone with your speculation.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Logosone said:

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.

 

 

As has been explained before, repeatedly, hospitals needing 74% more beds over 18 months is far preferable to hospitals needing 700% more beds over six months.  You ignore that and keep repeating the same specious arguments.

[Logosone]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

Dear God, if you seriously believe Japan has fewer than 1000 cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale. Do me a favour.

 

By the same logic Zimbabwe has zero cases and is doing extremely well. Of course not testing has nothing to do with not identifying cases. Dear oh dear.

 

Places like Denmark and Switzerland are just testing more, that's why they find more cases. Of course they by no means find all cases either.

 

The supposed examples you give for social distancing working are for the flu, not for cornaviruses. The difference is that as many as 50% of the infected show no symptoms at all and thus the transmission of Covid19 is most likely significantly different to influenza viruses.

 

What is common sense is that if hospitals frantically focus on Covid19 for a longer period of time, rather than a short sharp shock, and thus for a longer period beds are requisitioned for Covid 19, operations for other ailments like coronary heart conditions and such cancelled, care compromised as people are moved and beds outsourced, then the great majority of patients in hospitals for conditions other than Covid19 will be the ones who will be at greater risk of dying.

 

The whole reason why the economy will contract by as much as 30% are the insane social distancing extreme measures that all the failing and bungling governments are pushing through.

 

You will never have the resources to 'test widely' in the US. What, do you think 300 million people will be tested in the US? We will never ever know the true extent of Covid 19 cases in the US. All we will have is more accurate estimates, because the US will not test widely.

 

I mentioned that social distance is insufficient without testing because you falsely claimed that in China social distancing was the reason for cases now abaiting, when it was testing and isolating the infected.

 

You're not explaining anything, you're just repeating your mantra of social distancing like a good believer, just repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more based on hard data, you need the hard data. Which you don't have. Cleopatra at least tried to provide a relevant study, which frankly looks at restricting travel and is not exactly the same as the social distancing we're all forced to endure now, but at least it's relevant. Unlike the Harvard study you keep alluding to.

 

Your repeated reference to a Harvard study which examines the unpreparedness of US hospitals and the extent to which US hospitals will be overwhelmed as somehow proving how social distancing works is absolutely bizarre. That study does not even deal with how effective social distancing is.

[Logosone]

 

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Once again, you are arguing against things I never posted.  Just as I never said that additional hospital beds alone would stop the pandemic, and never argued that social distancing alone would stop the virus, I also never argued that Ioannidis doesn't want things to return to normal. 

 

I see the pattern here, when you're proven wrong you just claim you never said what you actually said. Remember what you actually said was "That is hardly the definitive support for returning to business as usual that you present it as.", referring to a paragraphy from the Ioannidis article. When you're then proven comprehensively wrong by a quote where Ioannidis says exactly that, that he supports returning to business as usual, you suddenly claim 'that's not what I said'.

 

You realise this is all here in black and white? 

[Logosone]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Social distancing, in addition to being part of the solution everywhere infection rates have been slowed, is also simple common sense.  Person to person transmission is slowed down by fewer person to person encounters.

Here you go again just repeating the same old scripture. 

 

What is common sense is that if the US health service is forced to undergo a longer period of focusing on Covid19, then it stands to reason that the large majority of patients in hospitals who are there for other ailments, some for critical conditions awaiting operations, will have a longer period of compromised care, operations will be cancelled, beds will be requisitioned for Covid 19 for a longer period. And yet doctors may not be able to do much for Covid19 patients in that longer period. So prolonging the shock to the US health care system could lead to more deaths, from people suffering ailments other than Covid19, whose operations were cancelled and who suffer compromised care as beds are outsourced offsite and such. That is common sense.

 

Whilst indeed social distancing has been grasped by desperate, rushed and bungling governments everywhere there is actually no hard data that social distancing works in slowing Covid19 transmissions to considerable extent. As we have found out. So that is the entire question, should social distancing be part of the solution? Some highly accredited medicine professors from Stanford and Yale think not.

 

So much for your supposed 'common sense'.

[Logosone]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

You also have no hard data.  You are speculating about how social distancing might increase the spread of the virus, and you are not convincing anyone with your speculation.

Fair enough, but I do have highly reputable and highly accredited Professors of Medicine, Epidemiology and Statistics from Stanford and Yale, who I have quoted extensively who also doubt that social distancing works to do what its rapturous defenders like yourself would like to believe it will do, in the complete absence of hard data.

 

Of course your whole idea that social distancing will work to provide sufficient time for all hospitals to gear up and save so many lives is mere speculation, a stab in the dark, and nothing but a hope. You have no data whatsoever and you are prepared to let the economies of the entire world go to hell, because you have a hunch this may work without having any hard evidence whatsoever?

 

Who is really speculating here? You if anybody.

[Jingthing]

Definitely will not be opening up at Easter. 

 

 

[Logosone]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

As has been explained before, repeatedly, hospitals needing 74% more beds over 18 months is far preferable to hospitals needing 700% more beds over six months.  You ignore that and keep repeating the same specious arguments.

You have not explained anything. You've just repeated the same hopes and dreams.

 

What has been explained to you over and over again is that if you drag out the period during which the US hospitals are subject to the shock of Covid19 then that will compromise the care for everyone else, including critically ill people, there will be cancellations of operations, beds outsourced to offsite areas with far less experienced staff, in short non-Covid19 patients will be at a greater risk of dying. And it maybe that the greater deaths will be on the side of those patients, who are in the majority, who do not have Covid19 but other dangerous conditions.

 

You ignore this and just keep repeating your same unfounded arguments devoid of any data.

[URMySunshine]

Billionaires,  the people of the world have served you notice the sun is setting on your inglorious age of whatever hue or nation. 

 

Make Earth Great Again 

 

Pope Francis says that our lives in this moment are sustained by ordinary people: "doctors, nurses, supermarket employees, cleaners, caregivers, providers of transport, law and order forces, volunteers, priests, religious men and women."

 

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

As has been explained before, repeatedly, hospitals needing 74% more beds over 18 months is far preferable to hospitals needing 700% more beds over six months.  You ignore that and keep repeating the same specious arguments.

Where do you find the energy?

[gk10002000]

His opinions or desires not withstanding, if individual States order lockdowns and shutdowns to stay in effect, well who wins that tug of war?

[anto]

On 3/23/2020 at 11:02 PM, Justgrazing said:

The top and that overhangy fringe bit he's got going on at the front look pure syrup of fig ( wig ) .. but that side looks like it might be genuine thatch ..

 

The eyebrows badly need a trim.When you get a B100 haircut in Thailand ,the trimming of the eyebrows is usually included along with ear hair removal. 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Logosone said:

Dear God, if you seriously believe Japan has fewer than 1000 cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale. Do me a favour.

 

By the same logic Zimbabwe has zero cases and is doing extremely well. Of course not testing has nothing to do with not identifying cases. Dear oh dear.

 

Places like Denmark and Switzerland are just testing more, that's why they find more cases. Of course they by no means find all cases either.

 

The supposed examples you give for social distancing working are for the flu, not for cornaviruses. The difference is that as many as 50% of the infected show no symptoms at all and thus the transmission of Covid19 is most likely significantly different to influenza viruses.

 

What is common sense is that if hospitals frantically focus on Covid19 for a longer period of time, rather than a short sharp shock, and thus for a longer period beds are requisitioned for Covid 19, operations for other ailments like coronary heart conditions and such cancelled, care compromised as people are moved and beds outsourced, then the great majority of patients in hospitals for conditions other than Covid19 will be the ones who will be at greater risk of dying.

 

The whole reason why the economy will contract by as much as 30% are the insane social distancing extreme measures that all the failing and bungling governments are pushing through.

 

You will never have the resources to 'test widely' in the US. What, do you think 300 million people will be tested in the US? We will never ever know the true extent of Covid 19 cases in the US. All we will have is more accurate estimates, because the US will not test widely.

 

I mentioned that social distance is insufficient without testing because you falsely claimed that in China social distancing was the reason for cases now abaiting, when it was testing and isolating the infected.

 

You're not explaining anything, you're just repeating your mantra of social distancing like a good believer, just repeating the same old nonsense won't make it any more based on hard data, you need the hard data. Which you don't have. Cleopatra at least tried to provide a relevant study, which frankly looks at restricting travel and is not exactly the same as the social distancing we're all forced to endure now, but at least it's relevant. Unlike the Harvard study you keep alluding to.

 

Your repeated reference to a Harvard study which examines the unpreparedness of US hospitals and the extent to which US hospitals will be overwhelmed as somehow proving how social distancing works is absolutely bizarre. That study does not even deal with how effective social distancing is.

As of March 26 Japan had 1387 confirmed cases and 46 deaths.  https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZTSB&pc=MOZI&q=covid+19+japan   If you have better data feel free to provide it.

 

"The supposed examples you give for social distancing working are for the flu, not for cornaviruses. The difference is that as many as 50% of the infected show no symptoms at all and thus the transmission of Covid19 is most likely significantly different to influenza viruses."

 

The fact that people can spread the virus when they don't show symptoms is an argument for social distancing, not against it.  However doctors think the virus transmission is greatest from people showing symptoms.

 

You stubbornly ignore the numbers.  You stubbornly ignore the logic that needing 74% more beds over 18 months is manageable and results in significantly fewer people not receiving medical help than needing 700% more beds over 6 months.  You stubbornly ignore the simple logic that people to people transmission is reduced when people make fewer contacts.

 

Regarding hard data, you have no hard data on the human and financial impacts of dropping all restrictions on travel and crowds.  Common sense as well as credible studies show the human cost will be large.  That will have an economic impact.

[heybruce]

17 hours 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.

 

5 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

I see the pattern here, when you're proven wrong you just claim you never said what you actually said. Remember what you actually said was "That is hardly the definitive support for returning to business as usual that you present it as.", referring to a paragraphy from the Ioannidis article. When you're then proven comprehensively wrong by a quote where Ioannidis says exactly that, that he supports returning to business as usual, you suddenly claim 'that's not what I said'.

 

You realise this is all here in black and white? 

I provided that post for you.  What is there that you consider definitive in your quote, other than the call for more data?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Logosone said:

Fair enough, but I do have highly reputable and highly accredited Professors of Medicine, Epidemiology and Statistics from Stanford and Yale, who I have quoted extensively who also doubt that social distancing works to do what its rapturous defenders like yourself would like to believe it will do, in the complete absence of hard data.

 

Of course your whole idea that social distancing will work to provide sufficient time for all hospitals to gear up and save so many lives is mere speculation, a stab in the dark, and nothing but a hope. You have no data whatsoever and you are prepared to let the economies of the entire world go to hell, because you have a hunch this may work without having any hard evidence whatsoever?

 

Who is really speculating here? You if anybody.

You have three professors expressing opinions that go against the overwhelming consensus of the medical community.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Logosone said:

You have not explained anything. You've just repeated the same hopes and dreams.

 

What has been explained to you over and over again is that if you drag out the period during which the US hospitals are subject to the shock of Covid19 then that will compromise the care for everyone else, including critically ill people, there will be cancellations of operations, beds outsourced to offsite areas with far less experienced staff, in short non-Covid19 patients will be at a greater risk of dying. And it maybe that the greater deaths will be on the side of those patients, who are in the majority, who do not have Covid19 but other dangerous conditions.

 

You ignore this and just keep repeating your same unfounded arguments devoid of any data.

"What has been explained to you over and over again is that if you drag out the period during which the US hospitals are subject to the shock of Covid19 then that will compromise the care for everyone else..."

 

Yes, and I explained, using numbers from a credible study, why slowing the spread of the virus will result in significantly less denial of medical attention than overwhelming hospitals in a shorter time span. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

Where do you find the energy?

He is incredibly tedious.  I just hate the spread of disinformation, and apparently he has nothing better to do.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, gk10002000 said:

His opinions or desires not withstanding, if individual States order lockdowns and shutdowns to stay in effect, well who wins that tug of war?

Unfortunately states can't close borders with neighboring states, so piecemeal lockdowns won't be as effective without a national strategy.

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

"What has been explained to you over and over again is that if you drag out the period during which the US hospitals are subject to the shock of Covid19 then that will compromise the care for everyone else..."

 

Yes, and I explained, using numbers from a credible study, why slowing the spread of the virus will result in significantly less denial of medical attention than overwhelming hospitals in a shorter time span. 

The current statistics and evidence suggest people do not fully recover from the virus.

At present the US has 102,000 known cases with only 2,400 fully recoved.

Worldwide the recovery is standing at approx 133, 000

Figures from John Hopkins University

[jcsmith]

47 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The current statistics and evidence suggest people do not fully recover from the virus.

At present the US has 102,000 known cases with only 2,400 fully recoved.

Worldwide the recovery is standing at approx 133, 000

Figures from John Hopkins University

That's an issue of timing. It's important to remember that the vast majority of cases worldwide have happened in the past two weeks. If you believe China's numbers they've had 81k cases and 75k of those have recovered and 3k have died with only 3k active cases.

Edited March 28, 2020 by jcsmith

[mike787]

he should, i can't handle this.

[Throatwobbler]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

As has been explained before, repeatedly, hospitals needing 74% more beds over 18 months is far preferable to hospitals needing 700% more beds over six months.  You ignore that and keep repeating the same specious arguments.

My 5th grade maths kids could understand that but it seems to be far too complicated for somebody on here.

[Nyezhov]

On 3/27/2020 at 8:29 AM, Logosone said:

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

Not if Governors utilize their already stocked military field hospitals to free up regular hospital beds.

[Logosone]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

You have three professors expressing opinions that go against the overwhelming consensus of the medical community.

No actually I could quote a lot more eminent, and I do mean really eminent, professors of medicine who are also critical of the social isolation model. But it's not about that, the truth is not about quantity, but quality.

 

The key point is still that you have no hard data that would prove social distancing even works, and on a hunch you'd be ready to flush the economies of the entire world down to the toilet.

[Logosone]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

"What has been explained to you over and over again is that if you drag out the period during which the US hospitals are subject to the shock of Covid19 then that will compromise the care for everyone else..."

 

Yes, and I explained, using numbers from a credible study, why slowing the spread of the virus will result in significantly less denial of medical attention than overwhelming hospitals in a shorter time span. 

Okay, if you read the study you allude to, what you will see is quote after quote by people running the hospitals saying that they do not believe they can handle the onslaught of what is to come.

 

I know you have the hope that by putting in enough beds a huge number of lives will be saved. This in the absence of any treatment, vaccine or even basic equipment like test kits. What if you're wrong? What if that doesn't save lives to the extent you think it does? 

 

But instead it prolongs a period of shock for the hospitals when they have to neglect non-Covid19 patients who are critical. Has it occured to you that the majority of deaths could then be from that side of the hospital population? And that the longer you therefore prolong your Covid19 operation the more people would die?

[Logosone]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

He is incredibly tedious.  I just hate the spread of disinformation, and apparently he has nothing better to do.

That is exactly how I feel about you, and since you're spreading misinformation I have to obviously counter it with real facts.

 

You know, since you don't have any real iron-clad hard data that would would lend any credibility to this belief that social distancing works like you think it will.

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, jcsmith said:

If you believe China's numbers they've had 81k cases and 75k of those have recovered and 3k have died with only 3k active cases.

Again, if you, like heybruce, think that identified cases represent the actual number of cases you are so far behind the curve it's a bit frightening.

 

Obviously the number of cases is far higher. 

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

My 5th grade maths kids could understand that but it seems to be far too complicated for somebody on here.

Thanks to you and Heybruce for posting the facts of reality. You will always have people who have little information think they know all. Also people that look to find things just to be different. Like flat earthers.

 

I dont know how you find the patience.

 

But here is trump demanding governors pay homage to the great one.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-demands-appreciation-from-governors-for-coronavirus-response-233142697.html

[Opl]

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Thanks to you and Heybruce for posting the facts of reality. You will always have people who have little information think they know all. Also people that look to find things just to be different. Like flat earthers.

 

I dont know how you find the patience.

 

But here is trump demanding governors pay homage to the great one.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-demands-appreciation-from-governors-for-coronavirus-response-233142697.html

"“He’s been so attentive to the scientific literature and the details and the data,” Birx told CBN. “I think his ability to analyze and integrate data that comes out of his long history in business has really been a real benefit during these discussions about medical issues because in the end, data is data.”