Flatten the Curve or Eliminate the Virus?

[statman78]

Mama Noodle,

 

You are spot on!  I totally agree!

 

As economies open up we will see an increase in cases.  The important thing is to keep the number of cases at a manageable level.  
 

Once things open up a bit I will go out and have a good dinner and a few pints with friends.  Could I be infected....yes.  Could I die .....yes but I have studied, taught and worked with odds and probabilities my entire career and IMHO are relatively low.  I didn’t work my entire life to sit at home because I’m afraid that somebody next to me may have this virus.  I’ll take sensible precautions but I won’t hide from this.

[NoBrainer]

On 5/8/2020 at 9:05 PM, Mama Noodle said:

 

But you're missing the point. The goal was never to keep people from dying, the goal was to stretch those deaths out over time so that hospitals don't get overwhelmed. That was the goal. The area under the line has the same amount of sickness as the peak above it.

 

 

 

Like many things, the goal post keeps moving.

 

When they are hell bent to take your rights away, it is better to ease it in slowly, rather than all at once.

It seems to be now decided along political lines in many countries. In the US the Right wing wants to re-open everything now, and do not want to wear masks or do anything different than they did before, because they have come to realize this is just an epic scam that has been perpetrated on the world, by the American Democratic party, NWO people & the Chinese.

A recent study was released comparing US death rates (from Jan tp April) over the last 5 years. This year is only 102% of the 5 year average, 2017 being the highest.

So in other words, Covid Flu has caused hardly any more deaths that we see every year.

 

On the other side, are the Left wing people who are mostly hiding in their basements, scream at people that don't wear a mask, and want to keep the worlds economies closed until after the next election. They also refuse to accept that there is a treatment that is about 98% successful if administered early, and costs very little, leading to massive unnecessary deaths.

 

So it is really a fight of ideologies, or good VS Evil, in other words. Fortunately the Good side of the equation is getting the message out, and exposing the fraudsters for what they are. So for now it's just sit back and see who will eventually win. As for Thailand, it will take longer than usual for the powers that be to realize the truth, but they are always quite slow and conservative in nature, so this is not surprising.

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by NoBrainer

[NoBrainer]

In case anyone asks to see the study i referred to

 

 

 

[nemo38]

56 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

Oh dear, another Buddy of Donald. 

The more people are tested the more cases you'll have. And that Thailand got only a marginal number of cases or deaths doesn't mean the virus avoided Thailand. 

Just compare Thailand's testing number of 10.000 a week with 500.000 per week in EU countries! 

Do your own mathematics. 

Thailand's economy is build on tourism. 

No tourists no income 

So it's quite obvious to have a low or no number of cases hoping that the tourists will come back soon. 

Marter your own brain. 

And somebody who is still thinking Corona is comparable with a flu can't either think or read or got a lack of knowledge or common sense or even brain maybe. 

Hospitals are empty.

 

We are not in a zombie apocalypse.

 

Grown ups study excess mortality and realise this is like a flu.

[tlock]

7 minutes ago, NoBrainer said:

In case anyone asks to see the study i referred to

 

 

 

Can you provide the original link?  This is the data I have been looking for but unable to find.  I can't figure out where that is aggregated on the cdc website: https://www.cdc.gov/DataStatistics/

 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, nemo38 said:

Hospitals are empty.

 

We are not in a zombie apocalypse.

 

Grown ups study excess mortality and realise this is like a flu.

Unfortunately the damage done is huge, and soon we are going to find out how huge it is.

[johnnybangkok]

7 minutes ago, NoBrainer said:

 

Like many things, the goal post keeps moving.

 

When they are hell bent to take your rights away, it is better to ease it in slowly, rather than all at once.

It seems to be now decided along political lines in many countries. In the US the Right wing wants to re-open everything now, and do not want to wear masks or do anything different than they did before, because they have come to realize this is just an epic scam that has been perpetrated on the world, by the American Democratic party, NWO people & the Chinese.

A recent study was released comparing US death rates (from Jan tp April) over the last 5 years. This year is only 102% of the 5 year average, 2017 being the highest.

So in other words, Covid Flu has caused hardly any more deaths that we see every year.

 

On the other side, are the Left wing people who are mostly hiding in their basements, scream at people that don't wear a mask, and want to keep the worlds economies closed until after the next election. They also refuse to accept that there is a treatment that is about 98% successful if administered early, and costs very little, leading to massive unnecessary deaths.

 

So it is really a fight of ideologies, or good VS Evil, in other words. Fortunately the Good side of the equation is getting the message out, and exposing the fraudsters for what they are. So for now it's just sit back and see who will eventually win. As for Thailand, it will take longer than usual for the powers that be to realize the truth, but they are always quite slow and conservative in nature, so this is not surprising.

 

Killing vulnerable people willingly to get deaths out of the way faster, achieve herd immunity and to open up the economy is not a battle of 'good versus evil'. It's common sense against eugenics. 

[tlock]

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Killing vulnerable people willingly to get deaths out of the way faster, achieve herd immunity and to open up the economy is not a battle of 'good versus evil'. It's common sense against eugenics. 

 

"the economy" directly affects health: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-usa-cost/

 

there are studies in there that show that the 30 million jobs the US has already lost directly lead to increases in mortality.  I think it's a tough choice that requires weighing long term health consequences against short term consequences.  

 

But to keep asserting that it is the economy vs. human life is simply not the reality.  

 

I am disappointed that the only part of the economy that is booming during this is the <deleted> stock market, for most people that is what they are thinking of when they say "the economy".  

 

The poor and socio-economically disadvantaged are experiencing higher mortality rates of the pandemic.  The economy DIRECTLY affects health.  It's not an either/or discussion.  It's short term vs. long term decision.

 

[tlock]

When this is all over the poor will be poorer and the rich will be richer.  And the poor begged for it.  This is so dystopian to me.

 

[johnnybangkok]

9 minutes ago, NoBrainer said:

In case anyone asks to see the study i referred to

 

 

 

Jesus, talk about false equivalents. 

Amazingly enough, when you lockdown 99% of the population, less people are exposed to other major killers such as road deaths (38,000) other accidents (169,936) and normal flu (55,672) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm. There is even a trend saying 'allmost half of the respondents reported that they are seeing a 40 percent to 60 percent reduction in admissions for heart attacks'. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/well/live/coronavirus-doctors-hospitals-emergency-care-heart-attack-stroke.html stating 'Maybe we have removed some of the triggers for heart attacks and strokes, like excessive eating and drinking or abrupt periods of physical exertion'.

 

Buy hey, produce a fancy graph that feeds into your echo chamber and I'll sure no one will notice.  

[Monomial]

14 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Killing vulnerable people willingly to get deaths out of the way faster, achieve herd immunity and to open up the economy is not a battle of 'good versus evil'. It's common sense against eugenics. 

 

Strawman argument. You've listened to too much indoctrination.

 

Nobody is killing anybody, willingly or otherwise. Only the virus kills people.

 

The issue is simply whether or not people get a choice to decide shelter in place or live their normal lives accept the reality of the virus. If you want to shelter in place and try and wait out the virus more power to you. I would even agree to government assistance to try and help those who want to take this approach and can't afford to.  Would be a heck of a lot cheaper than what we have done.

 

But I object to people who are at almost no risk of dying from being forced into abject poverty, separated from their families, and all the other horrors being inflicted on the population because a specific group is at risk of dying from this. It just isn't a serious problem for those under 60. Help those who need it, but give everyone a choice how they want to handle the risk of infection in their personal lives. Only if there is a clear and immediate threat to overwhelming the health services can these kinds of lockdowns be justified. And there is no threat of that currently. Zero infections is not an acceptable value judgement by politicians or health services organizations given the massive amount of pain and suffering the restrictions cause.

 

 

 

[RJRS1301]

On 5/8/2020 at 11:32 PM, CygnusX1 said:

Extra suicides alone will be far more than China virus deaths.

Link to factual information on that assertion would be helpful

To my knowledge not one suicide in the past 8 weeks has been directly related to the "lockdowns" in Australia.

I have researched as many health department and support agencies websites, so please post a factual link to this.

 

 

[CygnusX1]

On 5/9/2020 at 3:35 PM, chessman said:

Unless you're 102 and were around for the Spanish flu, this is a once in a lifetime event.

Not necessarily. What’s changed is that the Chinese have started to travel internationally in huge numbers. Wouldn’t surprise me at all to see COVID-25 coming straight from a Chinese wildlife market.

[johnnybangkok]

Just now, Monomial said:

 

Strawman argument. You've listened to too much indoctrination.

 

Nobody is killing anybody, willingly or otherwise. Only the virus kills people.

 

The issue is simply whether or not people get a choice to decide shelter in place or live their normal lives accept the reality of the virus. If you want to shelter in place and try and wait out the virus more power to you. I would even agree to government assistance to try and help those who want to take this approach and can't afford to.  Would be a heck of a lot cheaper than what we have done.

 

But I object to people who are at almost no risk of dying from being forced into abject poverty, separated from their families, and all the other horrors being inflicted on the population because a specific group is at risk of dying from this. It just isn't a serious problem for those under 60. Help those who need it, but give everyone a choice how they want to handle the risk of infection in their personal lives. Only if there is a clear and immediate threat to overwhelming the health services can these kinds of lockdowns be justified. And there is no threat of that currently. Zero infections is not an acceptable value judgement by politicians or health services organizations given the massive amount of pain and suffering the restrictions cause.

 

 

 

God, where to start.

 

'Nobody is killing anybody, willingly or otherwise. Only the virus kills people.'- the equivalent of saying a drunk driver doesn't kill people; the car does. 

 

'The issue is simply whether or not people get a choice to decide shelter in place or live their normal lives accept the reality of the virus.' - yeah because giving people independent choice in a pandemic is always a good idea. Do you think people were given a 'choice' about whether to keep their lights on during the blitz or whether someone can go out during a tornedo? The good of the masses outweighs the needs of the individaul. that's what living in society entails.

 

'Only if there is a clear and immediate threat to overwhelming the health services can these kinds of lockdowns be justified.' - that is literally why this was all done. If it wasn't for the lockdown you can be gauranteed health services would have been overwhelmed.

 

The issue with your whole post is if it was all about damaging just yourself then I'd agree; if you want to be stupid then fill your boots but that's not the case is it? Your 'choice' to go about your life as if nothing is happening effects others and all it takes is one or two super-spreaders and large amounts of people who didn't need to die, have shuffled off their mortal coil through no fault of their own.

 

And to say 'It just isn't a serious problem for those under 60' negates the fact that 2% of deaths are under the age of 60. Out of the 280,000 C19 deaths (so far) that's 5,600 including a growing number of 30-40 years who are dying of strokes   https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients. Are you willing to risk your son/daughter/grandchildren  

 

Look, I agree there needs to come a time when things start opening up (my own business is really suffering) and it makes absolute sense that those at most risk are shielded from immediate harm BUT this should have been done at the beginning of the outbreak when there was a chance to contain things but through the general incompetance and denial of many world governments (don't get me started on that) this did not happen so we can either cry over the spilled milk or try and mitigate the consequences of their actions.  

 

The economy will open up again; people will get back to work and the world will eventually return to some form of normality. But for that to NOT involve mass deaths then it has to be regulated, structured and phased in because as they say, you'll recover from having no money but there's no coming back from being dead. 

 

 

 

 

[sawadee1947]

1 hour ago, tlock said:

 

 

I think trump is an idiot, but I also think extending the lockdowns will have more devastating consequences long term than lifting them.  

Sure, in your way there would die more and more people...... in long term ????

[Monomial]

4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

God, where to start.

 

'Nobody is killing anybody, willingly or otherwise. Only the virus kills people.'- the equivalent of saying a drunk driver doesn't kill people; the car does. 

 

'The issue is simply whether or not people get a choice to decide shelter in place or live their normal lives accept the reality of the virus.' - yeah because giving people independent choice in a pandemic is always a good idea. Do you think people were given a 'choice' about whether to keep their lights on during the blitz or whether someone can go out during a tornedo? The good of the masses outweighs the needs of the individaul. that's what living in society entails.

 

'Only if there is a clear and immediate threat to overwhelming the health services can these kinds of lockdowns be justified.' - that is literally why this was all done. If it wasn't for the lockdown you can be gauranteed health services would have been overwhelmed.

 

The issue with your whole post is if it was all about damaging just yourself then I'd agree; if you want to be stupid then fill your boots but that's not the case is it? Your 'choice' to go about your life as if nothing is happening effects others and all it takes is one or two super-spreaders and large amounts of people who didn't need to die, have shuffled off their mortal coil through no fault of their own.

 

And to say 'It just isn't a serious problem for those under 60' negates the fact that 2% of deaths are under the age of 60. Out of the 280,000 C19 deaths (so far) that's 5,600 including a growing number of 30-40 years who are dying of strokes   https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients. Are you willing to risk your son/daughter/grandchildren  

 

Look, I agree there needs to come a time when things start opening up (my own business is really suffering) and it makes absolute sense that those at most risk are shielded from immediate harm BUT this should have been done at the beginning of the outbreak when there was a chance to contain things but through the general incompetance and denial of many world governments (don't get me started on that) this did not happen so we can either cry over the spilled milk or try and mitigate the consequences of their actions.  

 

The economy will open up again; people will get back to work and the world will eventually return to some form of normality. But for that to NOT involve mass deaths then it has to be regulated, structured and phased in because as they say, you'll recover from having no money but there's no coming back from being dead. 

 

 

 

 

You are entitled to your value choices, and I am entitled to mine. You are NOT entitled to force your values onto me. Do you hear yourself?  "2% of deaths are under the age of 60." Exactly. *ONLY* 2%. I'll even give you as high as 5% of deaths.

 

I am quite willing to accept that risk in order not to have my life destroyed by the economic evisceration being forced upon me. I accept a chance I will die every day when I drive on the roads. And as long as I don't overwhelm the health services with my judgements, I am not in any way affecting your life.

 

You are the one who is unwilling to accept that people do not share your value system.

 

[dieter1]

in the media, you mostly get fabricated (false, misinterpreted) statistics about the  results of the so called "corona pandemic".  The sideeffects of the management of this pandemic is mostly not mentioned. And yes, these results are somewhat much more complicated as the  popaganda for the masses is.

But beside that, these "sideeffects" are huge. The following article is just highlightening one aspect:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/may/06/millions-develop-tuberculosis-tb-covid-19-lockdown

[sawadee1947]

1 hour ago, nemo38 said:

Hospitals are empty.

 

We are not in a zombie apocalypse.

 

Grown ups study excess mortality and realise this is like a flu.

You know this: you can't fix stupidity..... 

Not only Donald or Bojo aren't the brightest candles on the cake.... 

Many Buddies here on TV too. 

????

[Mama Noodle]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Killing vulnerable people willingly to get deaths out of the way faster, achieve herd immunity and to open up the economy is not a battle of 'good versus evil'. It's common sense against eugenics. 

 

Nobody cared in 2017-2018 when upwards of 80,000 people died of the flu. 

 

Nobody cares when 250,000 - 800,000 people die globally every year from the flu. 

 

That is not a false equivalent, those are hard facts presented for perspective and context. 

 

Nobody is going around murdering grandmothers so you can lay off the hysterics.

[johnnybangkok]

9 minutes ago, Monomial said:

You are entitled to your value choices, and I am entitled to mine. You are NOT entitled to force your values onto me. Do you hear yourself?  "2% of deaths are under the age of 60." Exactly. *ONLY* 2%. I'll even give you as high as 5% of deaths.

 

I am quite willing to accept that risk in order not to have my life destroyed by the economic evisceration being forced upon me. I accept a chance I will die every day when I drive on the roads. And as long as I don't overwhelm the health services with my judgements, I am not in any way affecting your life.

 

You are the one who is unwilling to accept that people do not share your value system.

 

Fortunately the vast amount of people and governments do so there's that.

[Mama Noodle]

12 minutes ago, Monomial said:

You are the one who is unwilling to accept that people do not share your value system.

 

I suspect that people who feel the way that he does about the virus have no skin in the game. Are retired/have a pension/don't have to worry about global economies. 

[tlock]

19 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

Not necessarily. What’s changed is that the Chinese have started to travel internationally in huge numbers. Wouldn’t surprise me at all to see COVID-25 coming straight from a Chinese wildlife market.

Yes.  My point was that given the current criticisms that we didn't lock down soon enough or hard enough, we would have locked down for SARS, MERS, N1H1, and would now be on our 4th lockdown in 20 years.  I do think we will see a COVID-25 or COVID-30.  I don't think we can handle continually "everyone stop doing everything" as a scalable solution to pandemic viruses short of the Black Plague.

 

 

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

I suspect that people who feel the way that he does about the virus have no skin in the game. Are retired/have a pension/don't have to worry about global economies. 

..And probably don't have much empathy to perceive the huge distress and hardship which are affecting millions of families victims of this madness.

[vermin on arrival]

On 5/9/2020 at 7:52 AM, Laza 45 said:

If you look at the countries that have been most successful at containing the virus...Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and China and Thailand too....all these countries enforced stay at home, social distancing, wearing of masks, hygiene with sanitisers etc.. they have all reached a point now where they can now quickly identify new infections.. act quickly and prevent the spread.. They are all in a position to carefully open their economies again.. they are the winners in the race to 'open up'.. they will be the first to open their tourism industries.. the first to open trade between each other..  and they are now in a position to react quickly to any threat of a second wave..  ...the alternative?  ..look at the US total chaos.. and no end in sight..

Not true. Taiwan and South Korea never locked down. Some venues were shut like pubs. Taiwan tracked effectively, shut down travel from China early, and had huge amount of mask usage. South Korea tested out the wazoo and masks and quarantine of all entrants. Many different strategies used.

[vermin on arrival]

On 5/9/2020 at 9:17 AM, cmarshall said:

Not true.  SARS reproduction rate comparable to Covid-19:

 

R ₀ estimates for SARS have been reported to range between 2 and 5, which is within the range of the mean R₀ for COVID-19 found in this review. Due to similarities of both pathogen and region of exposure, this is expected. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7074654/

 

Of the 5 governments cited that have succeeded in containing Covid, which is S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand, only Hong Kong may be considered a communist country, and then only partially.  

 

Keep ignoring the facts and try to believe that the Western countries are somehow competent.  Meanwhile, be grateful that you live in Thailand.

Seems like a few western countries have done a good job. Norway and Greece are the first to spring to mind.

[lkv]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

large amounts of people who didn't need to die, have shuffled off their mortal coil through no fault of their own.

Most did not keep themselves fit and healthy, it's not my problem.

 

It will only become my problem if ICU's are overloaded.

 

I read every label of a product in a supermarket that I buy, for nutritional values.

 

And anyway, whoever is afraid to go out, please lock yourselves in the house and ask social services to bring food over and leave it at the door.

Edited May 10, 2020 by lkv

[chessman]

34 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Nobody cared in 2017-2018 when upwards of 80,000 people died of the flu. 

 

Nobody cares when 250,000 - 800,000 people die globally every year from the flu. 

Flu deaths are only that high when mortality data is analysed after that flu season has finished. The running totals are always much lower. You are comparing the low Covid total (the running total) with the high flu total. When mortality is analysed for Covid the real number will certainly much higher. You can read about that here.

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/

 

Also, things are opening up (slowly) in many many places, no?

 

 

[Mayhem11]

Compare global stats for Covid 19 and the swine flu epidemic of 2009. No lockdowns or quarantining in 2009. Why the different response this time? 

[chessman]

3 minutes ago, Mayhem11 said:

Compare global stats for Covid 19 and the swine flu epidemic of 2009. No lockdowns or quarantining in 2009.

The running total for swine flu after a whole year was 18,000. The high numbers you may read about for Swine flu was after analysis of death data. The total for Covid 19 will also increase a lot when mortality data is analysed.

[sead]

You are eliminating the virus by flattenng the curve, Its easier to handle