Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by SlyPokerDog, Jan 3, 2020.
This must be another hoax!
Coronavirus US live: Trump calls America’s 1.52m cases ‘a badge of honor’, stirring outrage
It also shows the fallacy that the 'stay at home' orders will eradicate the virus.
We're going to have to deal with this until we can reach herd immunity (via vaccine and/or through natural process).
Protecting the vulnerable and letting everyone else live a 'normal' life with appropriate social distancing measures is the best and fastest way forward.
Trump and his lack of humanity. He can't even show one ounce of give a crap about Americans as they contract, and possibly die of, Covid-19.
So, if contracting the virus is a "Badge of honor", dying from the virus must be the "Door prize"...
I don't believe the stay at home order was to eradicate the virus, but instead slow it down so as not to overwhelm our medical facilities and allow time to come up with a game changer.
And this was accomplished with great success. Time to let life move on now.
The National Guard was deployed to some of the hardest hit areas. They set up testing sites, helped in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons, worked on protocols for contact testing. Many governors and mayors asked their deployment be extended as they were still needed. They were extended until June 24. That was a hard date, not extension allowed, for ending the deployment. As the guard personnel will be in quarantine for 14 days, in reality that means they will be leaving their tasks on June 10. The date was puzzling, it seemed so arbitrary, and no connection with need. Until someone started doing the math.
National Guard personnel deployed in a national emergency for 90 days or more are, under the 9/11 First Responders Act, eligible for educational and retirement benefits.
June 24 is Day 89. So by ending the deployment one day shy of 90 days, the Trump administration screws the National Guardsmen and women out of benefits while leaving states and communities without their assistance.
Thank you for your service.
yeah, let's just go about business as usual. The pandemic is over.
What you said the goal was, has been accomplished. Do you disagree?
Its sooo hard to have an up and up discussion around here anymore...........
please point out anyone claiming that "stay-at-home orders would eradicate the virus"
stay-at-home; social distancing; limiting gatherings...they have been about mitigating the spread, not eradicating the virus. Mitigation designed to save lives and limit the scope of the pandemic.
and contrary to the giant streams of bullshit coming out of the right side of the political spectrum, mitigation works
compare Germany (which acted early with mitigation), USA (which has had piece-meal mitigation), and Sweden (which has had almost no mitigation) in terms of deaths/million:
or compare Oregon (which was early and thoughtful in mitigation policies) to several states that have practiced little mitigation, in terms of deaths/million:
North Dakota 64
South Dakota 52
Oregon was lucky in acting early being sandwiched in between two states that had early outbreaks. We started mitigation before there were any clusters or hot spots (we closed the barn door before the cows escaped, unlike NY and California). Only 5 states (Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, and Hawaii) have fewer deaths/million and fewer cases/million; and 4 of those states are more rural with lower population density, while the other, Hawaii, has a massive border advantage over every other state
(I also think mitigation is more successful when the people cooperate with policies, and Oregonians have done a good job in that respect)
Where's Dr. Fauci? Why has it been so long since we've heard from him?
there is no vaccine and the virus is still out there, strong as ever
the goal is to get the leading point of that 'arc' back down to where it was at the beginning. On March 9, about the time that mitigation policies were starting to be implemented, there were 68 new cases; on March 18 there were 1,365 new cases. Yesterday there were 21,551 cases. On March 9, there was 1 new death; on March 18 there were 10 new deaths; yesterday there were 1574 deaths
if the "goal" was to hold steady at 50,000 deaths a month, it was a stupid goal
Cant wait for this answer
I honestly believe that our some parts of our government has huddled together and decided on a number of deaths that can be deemed as "acceptable" while reopening the country.
It's almost like they consider "X" number of deaths as "collateral damage".
Sure, mission mostly accomplished on preventing medical facilities from being completely overrun to this point. We still don't want medical facilities overrun, though. That's why things can't go back to normal.
It's like saying at halftime of a basketball game, we played defense to slow the other team's scoring. We accomplished that, so it's time to ease up on playing defense.
Did you read the post I was reffering to? Had nothing to do with whether we have a vaccine or not.
So you are saying the goal was not to stem the medical and emergency services from being overwhelmed?
Seems that goal post has changed then if you are now saying its about the ARC... because that wasn't the case originally.....
I don't even know where you are coming up with hold steady at 50K deaths...
"...With widespread infection inevitable, the goal of the lockdown is to slow the spread enough to ensure that all critically ill patients have hospital beds. At the same time, we don’t want to impose any more economic pain than is necessary to keep the case load manageable. Logically, the ideal quarantine policy would be loose enough to keep hospitals near capacity but tight enough to avoid exceeding it..."
Okay, I take that and volley this back.....
"...Now peak resource use is supposedly upon us, but most hospitals are far from overflowing. Thanks to expansion of ICU wings, postponement of non-life-saving care, and overestimation of the number of people who would need to be admitted, some hospitals actually have too little to do rather than too much. Isn’t this strong evidence that the quarantines can be loosened? Even just a partial economic restart could make a significant difference in the lives of people who have lost their jobs or have seen their incomes drop..."
the "goal" was to mitigate the spread. Part of reasoning for that was to relieve the burdens a surge would levy on hospitals. But there were many broader goals as well. That's just obvious, and I'm not going to go down the stupid rabbit hole of a semantic debate
mitigation was about limiting the impacts of the pandemic on all parts of society until treatments/vaccines were available. If the mortality rate is around 1% and a vaccine is available in January, and mitigation keeps total infections at 35 million vs no mitigation and infections at 100 million, that's 650,000 lives saved by mitigation. That's the type of result that motivates mitigation policies, and that's not just about the hospital system.
and it's way too fucking early to be declaring victory and shit-canning the policies that have led to the situation you seem to think warrants business as usual
and by the way, I got to 50,000 deaths/month by projecting yesterday's mortality numbers ove a month. Math
I don't think that analogy would work if you were talking to Stotts.
Separate names with a comma.