3 minutes ago, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

the nordic countries do not have the best standards of life (well maybe according to their

standards) and anyway they would not been able to pay their bills if not for the

capitalistic countries that they do business with.

Actually, I was wrong. Denmark and Finland in the top three according to one source.

Another puts them at positions 1, 3, 6 and 7.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/19-countries-with-the-highest-standard-of-life-according-to-the-social-progress-report-2016-6

 

What all these sources have in common are that these SOCIALIST countries are all way ahead of the good ol' US of A.

4 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

All you have to do is show me a quote and you seem to have a real hard time showing me a quote that says it’s 30-40 times more deadly than the flu. 

What's wrong with the World Health Organization link I gave you?

Flu death rate = 0.1%

COVID19 death rate between 3% and 4%. Now.....if I do the maths in my head, I come up with a figure of 30% to 40%. 

 

There's no satisfying some people......either that, or, they're allergic to Crow.

Just now, KarenBravo said:

What's wrong with the World Health Organization link I gave you?

Flu death rate = 0.1%

COVID19 death rate between 3% and 4%. Now.....if I do the maths in my head, I come up with a figure of 30% to 40%. 

No, that is not the WHO saying the death rate is 30 - 40 times more deadly than flu. That’s you doing your own math with numbers you don’t understand. 
 

Shouldn’t be too hard to find a real quote if there’s legitimate scientific consensus. Which you can seem to do.

2 hours ago, steelepulse said:

Road deaths 1.25 million in 2013 according to WHO, so that number is up due to population increase

You could reduce that number of deaths to nearly zero by imposing a super strict speed limit of 40 kmh for all vehicles, controlled by GPS or electronic speed limiter. Huge economic damage and inconvenience, but nowhere near as much as the economic devastation caused by the China virus lockdowns.

Was it right to take extreme measures to stop the exponential rise of a virus that people had little understanding of? Probably

As it becomes known that this virus is less deadly than previously feared, is it right that governments formulate plans with incremental openings? Yes, of course.

Are some governments being overly cautious with these openings? Yes, almost certainly... but governments should be cautious with public health.

3 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

What's wrong with the World Health Organization link I gave you?

Flu death rate = 0.1%

COVID19 death rate between 3% and 4%. Now.....if I do the maths in my head, I come up with a figure of 30% to 40%. 

 

There's no satisfying some people......either that, or, they're allergic to Crow.

there is a lot of evidence to say the rate is much lower than that.

https://www.virology.ws/2020/04/05/infection-fatality-rate-a-critical-missing-piece-for-managing-covid-19/

 

"The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at the University of Oxford currently estimates the CFR globally at 0.51%, with all the caveats pertaining thereto.  CEBM estimates the IFR at 0.1% to 0.26%, with even more caveats pertaining thereto." cfr is for confirmed cases and ifr is based on estimated numbers of infected that are not confirmed.

 

and another estimate from that article

 

"The IHME prediction of ~93,000 deaths implies an IFR of 0.9%, close to the commonly estimated 1% CFR globally.  Note that IHME is really only projecting deaths based on real data, and therefore should not be faulted for choosing a conservative estimate of infection rate (~1%), especially given that the IFR is, at this point in time, a particularly slippery number."

8 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

There's no satisfying some people......either that, or, they're allergic to Crow.

 

These are what legitimate quotes to legitimate studies look like. See if you can do the same for your 30-40 times more deadly statement. There are sources in the body of the study of you want to look for reasons to deny and/or poke holes in it. 

 

Quote

Infection Fatality Rate (23k / 1.7M = 1.4% IFR)

Actual Cases with an outcome as of May 1 = estimated actual recovered (1,671,351) + estimated actual deaths (23,430) = 1,694,781
Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) = Deaths / Cases = 23,430 / 1,694,781 = 1.4% (1.4% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a fatal outcome, while 98.6% recover).

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/

 

here's one of the studies the first article referneced, the one from oxford, with varying levels of cfr and ifr per nation. The cfr is always significantly higher because it doesn't include the people who were asymptomatic and didn't seek treatment. The first article is also from april 4 so maybe the data is not as accurate but the second one from Oxford has updates in it

2 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

I would have not before, but am slowly starting to agree with some of your comments.

There seems no end to any of it.

Better late than never.

No one wants to buy bonds of the socialist republics of the West anymore.

And the socialist paradises of the west has enormous debt, huge budget deficits,

they must print tens of trillions ... they had to cool the economy

so that inflation would not explode, distract people, find a scapegoat,
and by the way maybe can break the supply chains with that monster

who doesn't want these wonderful bonds with interest rates well below inflation.

It was obvious before the end of January that this virus is not going to go away within the next year or so ..... so lockdowns are completely illogical.

 

A second great depression, huge increases in unemployment, major disruption to medical treatment, massive increase in public debt - for what benefit?

 

Flattening the curve really means delaying immunity - and if immunity is short lived, this means many more secondary cases.

 

1 hour ago, NotYourBusiness said:

Trump would lose the election.

i also believe more and more that this whole virus thing has a lot of politics in play.

i see how the leftists media are attacking any right wing politician around the world,

inflating the numbers or giving headlines to "experts" that tell how many will die

because this politician is not thinking like them.

2 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

A second great depression, huge increases in unemployment, major disruption to medical treatment, massive increase in public debt - for what benefit?

Yeah could only be conceivable with black death kind of fatality figures

 

3 minutes ago, Kinnock said:

Flattening the curve really means delaying immunity - and if immunity is short lived, this means many more secondary cases.

 

Yeah, I could see doing it in the beginning because people didn't know what they were dealing with and were worried about overwhelmed health services, and less knowledge of the illness, but the longer the flattening goes on means the longer the epidemic will go on, the less potential immunity is built up, and the worse the economic disaster. The only way it works is if you go beyond flattening to completely crushing and then remain isolated until treatments and vaccines are found. Otherwise a way must be found to open up with reasonable precautions sooner rather than later if possible. But it seems like the places being totally crushed now may still have to sustain flattening longer to get it under control before they open, no?

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

I'd like to see the death count caused by lockdowns and other measures, such as suicides, people who don't get treatment at hospitals for cancer, strokes, plus future deaths because countries can no longer afford sufficient healthcare. Probably higher than the virus itself

My dads trapped in Cambodia right now with a critical heart condition and if he dies it's because he wasn't able to fly to a nearby (non-3rd world) country for surgery. This is happening all over the world I'm sure.

2 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

Certainly frustration is setting in for many.

Los Angeles just announced 3 more months of stay at home.

People are starting to have mental issues with being home, losing jobs, no money, no life.

 

I would have not before, but am slowly starting to agree with some of your comments.

There seems no end to any of it.

At some point, a cost/benefit analysis has to be done- as with any other peril people face. An extreme example: we don't ban cars to stop the tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year.

 

We've had worse pandemics and did not close down the economy. Asian flu killed 1-4 million during the 50s. No shutdown. Another pandemic killed 100,000 Americans in '68. No shutdown. TB kills a million people each year. No shutdown.

1 minute ago, genericptr said:

My dads trapped in Cambodia right now with a critical heart condition and if he dies it's because he wasn't able to fly to a nearby (non-3rd world) country for surgery. This is happening all over the world I'm sure.

Good god man that is terrible news. Of all the countries to be stuck in. I hope everything turns out OK.

54 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

1 hour ago, SCOTT FITZGERSLD said:

thing is that this virus moved fast, and no way to tell where it will stop.

the only way to stop was and still is the lockdown.

without the lockdown is could spread , theoretically, endlessly

and kill even half the world population.

even without the lockdown the world economy would come to a halt, as

so many people will not go to work because they will have to look

after their loved ones or will have troubles (teachers died and parents

need to look after the children).

no, there is no theoretical ground for stating it could wipe out half the world

hey don't let that get in the way of scotty's super duper claim.

51 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

What's wrong with the World Health Organization link I gave you?

Flu death rate = 0.1%

COVID19 death rate between 3% and 4%. Now.....if I do the maths in my head, I come up with a figure of 30% to 40%. 

 

There's no satisfying some people......either that, or, they're allergic to Crow.

That sounds like the mortality rate for observed cases. There's evidence to suggest the actual mortality rate is more like 0.1% to 0.2%.

 

https://smmirror.com/2020/04/study-shows-la-county-coronavirus-count-upwards-of-400000/

 

But 3% sounds much scarier, so some people will stick with the scarier numbers.

2 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

Certainly frustration is setting in for many.

Los Angeles just announced 3 more months of stay at home.

People are starting to have mental issues with being home, losing jobs, no money, no life.

 

I would have not before, but am slowly starting to agree with some of your comments.

There seems no end to any of it.

 

I think you might be the first person on the internet to change their mind about something after seeing new data?

 

/joking

 

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

Ask any one of your friends which they would choose.......their money, or, their parents.

These are emotional arguments. Using emotions, I say I want cars banned because my brother was killed by a reckless driver. Decisions based on emotions are quite often bad decisions.

This whole thing has been a joke from start to finish - every single decision for most countries has been about politics and public opinion, not actual medical facts. This virus is super contagious and not very deadly, which means it is impossible to eradicate it - it will keep coming back every year. All the shutdowns and other draconian measures have been completely pointless and did not produce much results - at-risk countries (cold weather, obese, unhealthy population) still had lots of deaths anyway, and no-risk countries like Thailand (hot weather, lean healthy population) would've been fine either way.

 

Thailand should've never implemented a lockdown - that was a mistake and completely unnecessary. Open 'er up!

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

I can assure you that I would choose my parents (if they were alive) over money. Can you say the same thing?

You have a right to choose your parents over money. And that would be noble and righteous. You don't have a right to choose everyone else's money and well-being over a very small percentage of people dying from disease- which happens constantly in the world.

8 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

We've had worse pandemics and did not close down the economy. Asian flu killed 1-4 million during the 50s. No shutdown. Another pandemic killed 100,000 Americans in '68. No shutdown. TB kills a million people each year. No shutdown.

There's a political aspect about this also. I don't know if anyone remembers but after the election Bill Maher said he hoped for a recession so that it would sink Trump's chances of winning 2020. I have no doubt some Democrats are pushing for lock down in order to hurt Trump electorally. That sounds cynical but politics are absolutely that toxic right now and I wouldn't put it past anyone.

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

Actually, I was wrong. Denmark and Finland in the top three according to one source.

Another puts them at positions 1, 3, 6 and 7.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/19-countries-with-the-highest-standard-of-life-according-to-the-social-progress-report-2016-6

 

What all these sources have in common are that these SOCIALIST countries are all way ahead of the good ol' US of A.

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

 

Who should we believe on whether Denmark is socialist? YOU or the Prime Minister of Denmark?

 

As to your broader claim, that is also debunked:

 

"Drawing on data from the World Bank, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and other reputable sources, the report shows that five nations — Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and the Netherlands — protect property rights somewhat more aggressively than the United States, on average; exercise less control over private enterprise; permit greater concentration in the banking sector; and distribute a smaller share of their total income to workers."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/democrats-use-nordic-nations-as-models-of-socialism-they-actually-involve-a-lot-of-capitalism/2019/06/24/b6d9bbdc-945c-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html

 

There is more information at the link, virtually all of which also debunks your assertion.

1 hour ago, KarenBravo said:

Can't have that. In the USA government welfare = socialism = communism.

They kind of ignore that the Nordic countries which have the best standard of living in the world are all socialist.

Don't climb on tree, coz obviously you have fall down from really high! That kind head injury need immediately doctor examination!

Socialist my a...

4 hours ago, steelepulse said:

This is .0024, or .24% of the population.

 

Does this make sense to lock down the whole world?

 

What would happen without lock downs?  

 

You use numbers after many countries locked down, and you use these numbers to prove that a lockdown is not useful?

 

There are few road deaths, which shows that speed limits are not necessary and that nobody has to use seat belts ????

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, dimitriv said:

 

What would happen without lock downs?  

 

You use numbers after many countries locked down, and you use these numbers to prove that a lockdown is not useful?

 

There are few road deaths, which shows that speed limits are not necessary and that nobody has to use seat belts ????

 

 

 

This is a somewhat reasonable response- I think some will point to Sweden as an example of what the numbers would have looked like without a lockdown.

 

But that's part of the problem, this is an experiment, and only 1 country in the world that has pretty low population density is the control group.  I think we will never be able to answer that question.

 

I've said this before- when this is over, both sides will say they were right.  It's not going to be as bad as the original models predicted, which even the models admitted was a "worst case scenario" without discussing the probabilities of that worse case scenario.

 

So people who support the lockdown will use the resulting numbers contrasted with the worse case scenario, and will say "see what would have happened without a lockdown, we saved millions of lives" and the anti-lockdown crowd will say "see, it wasn't nearly as bad as the predictions, this was a massive overreaction".

 

It would be nice if the result of this is some hard numbers for "this is what the death rate for a pandemic needs to look like to initiate a lockdown, and this is how we will measure it".  Wishful thinking I know...

 

I wouldn't argue against lockdowns if this was as infectious as covid-19 and as lethal as ebola...  

3 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

Except COVID-19 is 30 to 40 times more deadly and even more for seasonal flu and a lot more transmissible.

 

"Mortality for COVID-19 appears higher than for influenza, especially seasonal influenza. While the true mortality of COVID-19 will take some time to fully understand, the data we have so far indicate that the crude mortality ratio (the number of reported deaths divided by the reported cases) is between 3-4%, the infection mortality rate (the number of reported deaths divided by the number of infections) will be lower. For seasonal influenza, mortality is usually well below 0.1%. However, mortality is to a large extent determined by access to and quality of health care".

Keep in mind, the USA numbers are faked - hospitals get a pile of cash if they say it was covid - don't need a test to say it is.  Then add in the order from the Gov of NY, to put the sick elderly in nursing-homes, which led to a cascade of deaths.

Then figure in the huge untested with no or mild symptoms, which are not figured into the "infected" number.  When entire populations are tested, we find many had it and never knew.  The testing in LA-County showed this, as did at prisons, and even homeless-shelters (not the healthiest folks).  So the mortality rate is more like 0.1%, based on this data - same as seasonal flu.

What we saw, was a virus that spreads fast - so once in a nursing home, wreaks havoc.  What we didn't see, were the vast majority for whom it had little or no effect.  This 2nd factor is why hospitals were never overwhelmed, except in a few instances - and even then, almost entirely the elderly, plus some with known pre-existing, often-combined conditions (diabetes + obesity + high-blood-pressure). 

 

Hospital staff have lost their jobs in record-numbers in the USA - and during a "pandemic" - go figure.  Morality is based on advanced-age and health, more than any other factor.  Those with those conditions would we wide to take the precautions - but better if the rest of us got immune fast, so herd-immunity is reached, and this thing can die out (from no viable hosts) as soon as possible.

 

3 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

Ask any one of your friends which they would choose.......their money, or, their parents.

I'd tell anyone I cared about, who was in a high-risk group, to "shelter in place" until the rest of us get immune, so the virus will die-out.  Otherwise, they are more likely to get it, eventually - to spite taking precautions.

1 hour ago, genericptr said:

There's a political aspect about this also. I don't know if anyone remembers but after the election Bill Maher said he hoped for a recession so that it would sink Trump's chances of winning 2020. I have no doubt some Democrats are pushing for lock down in order to hurt Trump electorally. That sounds cynical but politics are absolutely that toxic right now and I wouldn't put it past anyone.

Sadly, we can never underestimate the depravity of people seeking political goals. The intense hatred of Trump already shown makes it perfectly legitimate to suggest his enemies are willing to do literally ANYTHING to make sure he isn't reelected.