Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
the jumps up n down seem to get greater... donno what they are doing here... its jumping from max to min an back within days... too unreliable for future prediction IMO...
Not Locking down doesn't work
- Thread starter Fogdog
- Start date
the jumps up n down seem to get greater... donno what they are doing here... its jumping from max to min an back within days... too unreliable for future prediction IMO...
zeddd
Well-Known Member
Do the swedes meditation less?Top six "healthiest countries"
1 Spain,
2 Italy,
3 Iceland
4 Japan,
5 Switzerland
6 Sweden
The healthiest countries in the world have been revealed
The UK was placed 19th on the list of 169 countrieswww.independent.co.uk
But, yeah, do take the vit. D.
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
But it started in Sweden first. Your looking at the wrong graph. The old and fat probably want to die anyways. I want a cheeseburger and go to the beach. This debate is over and your dumb lol.The much touted Swedish experiment where they didn't lock down, kept social gathering places open, told people to "be careful" and otherwise just let the epidemic have its way, left the country with thousands more dead than if they had locked down. Swedish leadership justified the swift deaths of their elderly population and others by claiming it would save lives in the long run by keeping the economy strong. If true, this is morally questionable. But then again, is it even true? Analysts of European economies are saying they see even that flabby excuse as false.
Sweden unlikely to feel economic benefit of no-lockdown approach
Analysts forecast that growth will contract at a similar rate to rest of Europe
Sweden unlikely to feel economic benefit of no-lockdown approach | Free to read
Analysts forecast that growth will contract at a similar rate to rest of Europewww.ft.com
Sweden refused to follow other European countries in closing its primary schools and kindergartens or banning people from leaving their homes, arguing that taking such “draconian measures” was not sustainable and could unnecessarily harm the economy. Swedish business leaders such as Jacob Wallenberg have urged authorities to take the economy into consideration when thinking of imposing restrictions, or risk social unrest.
Sweden, with a population of 10m, has had 3,220 deaths so far from coronavirus — more than triple the number in neighbouring Denmark, Finland and Norway, which have a combined population of 15m. Relative to population 311 people have died per million in Sweden, while in neighbouring Norway the toll so far is 40 per million.
Crap I forgot to ask. How’s the tofu coming?
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
The forth of July will be over shadowed by a huge second wave of the virus caused by a combination of opening up too soon and all the idiots that will completely disregard any social distancing advice, the hoax morons.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Dr. Fauci said, How much pain are you willing to endure?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.theatlantic.com
Take the Shutdown Skeptics Seriously
This is not a straightforward battle between a pro-human and a pro-economy camp.
Should states ease pandemic restrictions or extend lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders into the summer? That question confronts leaders across the United States. President Trump says that “we have to get our country open.” And many governors are moving quickly in that direction.
Critics are dismayed. Citing forecasts that COVID-19 deaths could rise to 3,000 per day in June, they say that reopening without better defenses against infections is reckless. That assessment may well be correct. Many insist it is immoral, too. The columnist Amy Z. Quinn says the Trump administration is “choosing money over lives.” In a CNN news analysis, Daniel Burke offers this characterization of America’s choice: “Should we reopen the economy to help the majority or protect the lives of the vulnerable?”
Denunciations of that sort cast the lockdown debate as a straightforward battle between a pro-human and a pro-economy camp. But the actual trade-offs are not straightforward. Set aside “flattening the curve,” which will continue to make sense. Are ongoing, onerous shutdowns warranted beyond what is necessary to avoid overwhelming ambulances, hospitals, and morgues?
The answer depends in part on an unknown: how close the country is to containing the virus.
“The public, the media, the business community, and policymakers are largely unprepared for a pessimistic scenario,” the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity argued in a recent white paper. That is, the U.S. may have no treatment, no vaccine, and no ability to scale up testing and quarantining, due to technical hurdles or Trump administration incompetence or a lack of public buy-in.
If we knew that a broadly effective COVID-19 treatment was imminent, or that a working vaccine was months away, minimizing infections through social distancing until that moment would be the right course. At the other extreme, if we will never have an effective treatment or vaccine and most everyone will get infected eventually, then the costs of social distancing are untenable. We don’t know where we sit on that spectrum. So we cannot know what the best way forward is even if we place the highest possible value on preserving life and protecting the vulnerable.
That uncertainty means, at the very least, that Americans should carefully consider the potential costs of prolonged shutdowns lest they cause more deaths or harm to the vulnerable than they spare.
Ongoing closures and supply-chain interruptions in wealthier countries could have catastrophic ripple effects, Michael T. Klare warns in The Nation, highlighting the possibility that global starvation could soar. “Even where supply chains remain intact, many poor countries lack the funds to pay for imported food,” he explained. “This has long been a problem for the least-developed countries, which often depend on international food aid … It is becoming even more severe as the number of people without jobs multiplies and donor countries balk at higher aid expenditures.” His article wasn’t a brief for reopening the economy, but it implied a need to guard against shutdowns that cause more deaths via starvation than are saved by slowing infections.
“A prolonged depression will stunt lives as surely as any viral epidemic, and its toll will not be confined to the elderly,” Heather Mac Donald argues at Spectator USA. “The shuttering of auto manufacturing plants led to an 85 percent increase in opioid overdose deaths in the surrounding counties over seven years, according to a recent study.” Deficit spending may be necessary to keep people afloat, she continued, but the wealth that permits it could quickly evaporate. “The enormously complex web of trade, once killed, cannot be brought back to life by government stimulus. And who is going to pay for all that deficit spending as businesses close and tax revenues disappear?”
At Arc Digital, Esther O’Reilly asks, “Why should we assume that a crashing economy would leave the healthcare system standing?” Fleshing out the matter, she writes, “You can’t keep the hospital lights on without keeping on the lights of the economic sectors undergirding it. Yes, our doctors and nurses are running out of masks and gloves, which is a serious problem. It would also be a serious problem if we lost the means and the manpower to make more, or if the hospitals ran out of cash on hand to buy more beds, ventilators, etc. And there’s the rub. We are being told we can’t fight the virus without pausing the economy, yet we can’t fight the virus without the economy.”
School closures may do long-term damage, as well. A recent study in The Lancet concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of school closures and other school social distancing measures comes almost entirely from influenza outbreaks,” and that the effectiveness of school measures in a coronavirus outbreak is uncertain. Another article in The Lancet noted that “education is one of the strongest predictors of the health and the wealth of a country’s future workers, and the impact of long-term school closure on educational outcomes, future earnings, the health of young people, and future national productivity has not been quantified.” A given closure could add months to the lives of some and subtract from the lives of others.
The general point is that minimizing the number of COVID-19 deaths today or a month from now or six months from now may or may not minimize the human costs of the pandemic when the full spectrum of human consequences is considered. The last global depression created conditions for a catastrophic world war that killed roughly 75 to 80 million people. Is that a possibility? The downside risks and costs of every approach are real, frightening, and depressing, no matter how little one thinks of reopening now.
These facts may not be evident from the least thoughtful proponents of reopening, many of whom advance arguments that are uninformed, dismissive of experts, or callous. But the warnings of thoughtful shutdown skeptics warrant careful study, not stigma rooted in the false pretense that they don’t have any plausible concerns or value human life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take the Shutdown Skeptics Seriously
This is not a straightforward battle between a pro-human and a pro-economy camp.
Take the Shutdown Skeptics Seriously
This is not a straightforward battle between a pro-human and a pro-economy camp.
Should states ease pandemic restrictions or extend lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders into the summer? That question confronts leaders across the United States. President Trump says that “we have to get our country open.” And many governors are moving quickly in that direction.
Critics are dismayed. Citing forecasts that COVID-19 deaths could rise to 3,000 per day in June, they say that reopening without better defenses against infections is reckless. That assessment may well be correct. Many insist it is immoral, too. The columnist Amy Z. Quinn says the Trump administration is “choosing money over lives.” In a CNN news analysis, Daniel Burke offers this characterization of America’s choice: “Should we reopen the economy to help the majority or protect the lives of the vulnerable?”
Denunciations of that sort cast the lockdown debate as a straightforward battle between a pro-human and a pro-economy camp. But the actual trade-offs are not straightforward. Set aside “flattening the curve,” which will continue to make sense. Are ongoing, onerous shutdowns warranted beyond what is necessary to avoid overwhelming ambulances, hospitals, and morgues?
The answer depends in part on an unknown: how close the country is to containing the virus.
“The public, the media, the business community, and policymakers are largely unprepared for a pessimistic scenario,” the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity argued in a recent white paper. That is, the U.S. may have no treatment, no vaccine, and no ability to scale up testing and quarantining, due to technical hurdles or Trump administration incompetence or a lack of public buy-in.
If we knew that a broadly effective COVID-19 treatment was imminent, or that a working vaccine was months away, minimizing infections through social distancing until that moment would be the right course. At the other extreme, if we will never have an effective treatment or vaccine and most everyone will get infected eventually, then the costs of social distancing are untenable. We don’t know where we sit on that spectrum. So we cannot know what the best way forward is even if we place the highest possible value on preserving life and protecting the vulnerable.
That uncertainty means, at the very least, that Americans should carefully consider the potential costs of prolonged shutdowns lest they cause more deaths or harm to the vulnerable than they spare.
Ongoing closures and supply-chain interruptions in wealthier countries could have catastrophic ripple effects, Michael T. Klare warns in The Nation, highlighting the possibility that global starvation could soar. “Even where supply chains remain intact, many poor countries lack the funds to pay for imported food,” he explained. “This has long been a problem for the least-developed countries, which often depend on international food aid … It is becoming even more severe as the number of people without jobs multiplies and donor countries balk at higher aid expenditures.” His article wasn’t a brief for reopening the economy, but it implied a need to guard against shutdowns that cause more deaths via starvation than are saved by slowing infections.
“A prolonged depression will stunt lives as surely as any viral epidemic, and its toll will not be confined to the elderly,” Heather Mac Donald argues at Spectator USA. “The shuttering of auto manufacturing plants led to an 85 percent increase in opioid overdose deaths in the surrounding counties over seven years, according to a recent study.” Deficit spending may be necessary to keep people afloat, she continued, but the wealth that permits it could quickly evaporate. “The enormously complex web of trade, once killed, cannot be brought back to life by government stimulus. And who is going to pay for all that deficit spending as businesses close and tax revenues disappear?”
At Arc Digital, Esther O’Reilly asks, “Why should we assume that a crashing economy would leave the healthcare system standing?” Fleshing out the matter, she writes, “You can’t keep the hospital lights on without keeping on the lights of the economic sectors undergirding it. Yes, our doctors and nurses are running out of masks and gloves, which is a serious problem. It would also be a serious problem if we lost the means and the manpower to make more, or if the hospitals ran out of cash on hand to buy more beds, ventilators, etc. And there’s the rub. We are being told we can’t fight the virus without pausing the economy, yet we can’t fight the virus without the economy.”
School closures may do long-term damage, as well. A recent study in The Lancet concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of school closures and other school social distancing measures comes almost entirely from influenza outbreaks,” and that the effectiveness of school measures in a coronavirus outbreak is uncertain. Another article in The Lancet noted that “education is one of the strongest predictors of the health and the wealth of a country’s future workers, and the impact of long-term school closure on educational outcomes, future earnings, the health of young people, and future national productivity has not been quantified.” A given closure could add months to the lives of some and subtract from the lives of others.
The general point is that minimizing the number of COVID-19 deaths today or a month from now or six months from now may or may not minimize the human costs of the pandemic when the full spectrum of human consequences is considered. The last global depression created conditions for a catastrophic world war that killed roughly 75 to 80 million people. Is that a possibility? The downside risks and costs of every approach are real, frightening, and depressing, no matter how little one thinks of reopening now.
These facts may not be evident from the least thoughtful proponents of reopening, many of whom advance arguments that are uninformed, dismissive of experts, or callous. But the warnings of thoughtful shutdown skeptics warrant careful study, not stigma rooted in the false pretense that they don’t have any plausible concerns or value human life.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
People, regardless of where they stand in the political divide, are following the lead of their governments. Not perfect but good enough. At least they have in states where leaders acted responsibly on this matter. What happens next comes down to the quality of leadership in each state. If there are very low rates of infection, maybe open air fireworks shows and small celebrations will be OK. Still, though I think you are right about this across the heartland because it seems that a lot of state's leaders are ignoring expert's advice to implement widespread testing, contact tracing and isolation protocols before opening up.
It's a false choice.Dr. Fauci said, How much pain are you willing to endure?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take the Shutdown Skeptics Seriously
This is not a straightforward battle between a pro-human and a pro-economy camp.
Take the Shutdown Skeptics Seriously
This is not a straightforward battle between a pro-human and a pro-economy camp.
Should states ease pandemic restrictions or extend lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders into the summer? That question confronts leaders across the United States. President Trump says that “we have to get our country open.” And many governors are moving quickly in that direction.
Critics are dismayed. Citing forecasts that COVID-19 deaths could rise to 3,000 per day in June, they say that reopening without better defenses against infections is reckless. That assessment may well be correct. Many insist it is immoral, too. The columnist Amy Z. Quinn says the Trump administration is “choosing money over lives.” In a CNN news analysis, Daniel Burke offers this characterization of America’s choice: “Should we reopen the economy to help the majority or protect the lives of the vulnerable?”
Denunciations of that sort cast the lockdown debate as a straightforward battle between a pro-human and a pro-economy camp. But the actual trade-offs are not straightforward. Set aside “flattening the curve,” which will continue to make sense. Are ongoing, onerous shutdowns warranted beyond what is necessary to avoid overwhelming ambulances, hospitals, and morgues?
The answer depends in part on an unknown: how close the country is to containing the virus.
“The public, the media, the business community, and policymakers are largely unprepared for a pessimistic scenario,” the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity argued in a recent white paper. That is, the U.S. may have no treatment, no vaccine, and no ability to scale up testing and quarantining, due to technical hurdles or Trump administration incompetence or a lack of public buy-in.
If we knew that a broadly effective COVID-19 treatment was imminent, or that a working vaccine was months away, minimizing infections through social distancing until that moment would be the right course. At the other extreme, if we will never have an effective treatment or vaccine and most everyone will get infected eventually, then the costs of social distancing are untenable. We don’t know where we sit on that spectrum. So we cannot know what the best way forward is even if we place the highest possible value on preserving life and protecting the vulnerable.
That uncertainty means, at the very least, that Americans should carefully consider the potential costs of prolonged shutdowns lest they cause more deaths or harm to the vulnerable than they spare.
Ongoing closures and supply-chain interruptions in wealthier countries could have catastrophic ripple effects, Michael T. Klare warns in The Nation, highlighting the possibility that global starvation could soar. “Even where supply chains remain intact, many poor countries lack the funds to pay for imported food,” he explained. “This has long been a problem for the least-developed countries, which often depend on international food aid … It is becoming even more severe as the number of people without jobs multiplies and donor countries balk at higher aid expenditures.” His article wasn’t a brief for reopening the economy, but it implied a need to guard against shutdowns that cause more deaths via starvation than are saved by slowing infections.
“A prolonged depression will stunt lives as surely as any viral epidemic, and its toll will not be confined to the elderly,” Heather Mac Donald argues at Spectator USA. “The shuttering of auto manufacturing plants led to an 85 percent increase in opioid overdose deaths in the surrounding counties over seven years, according to a recent study.” Deficit spending may be necessary to keep people afloat, she continued, but the wealth that permits it could quickly evaporate. “The enormously complex web of trade, once killed, cannot be brought back to life by government stimulus. And who is going to pay for all that deficit spending as businesses close and tax revenues disappear?”
At Arc Digital, Esther O’Reilly asks, “Why should we assume that a crashing economy would leave the healthcare system standing?” Fleshing out the matter, she writes, “You can’t keep the hospital lights on without keeping on the lights of the economic sectors undergirding it. Yes, our doctors and nurses are running out of masks and gloves, which is a serious problem. It would also be a serious problem if we lost the means and the manpower to make more, or if the hospitals ran out of cash on hand to buy more beds, ventilators, etc. And there’s the rub. We are being told we can’t fight the virus without pausing the economy, yet we can’t fight the virus without the economy.”
School closures may do long-term damage, as well. A recent study in The Lancet concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of school closures and other school social distancing measures comes almost entirely from influenza outbreaks,” and that the effectiveness of school measures in a coronavirus outbreak is uncertain. Another article in The Lancet noted that “education is one of the strongest predictors of the health and the wealth of a country’s future workers, and the impact of long-term school closure on educational outcomes, future earnings, the health of young people, and future national productivity has not been quantified.” A given closure could add months to the lives of some and subtract from the lives of others.
The general point is that minimizing the number of COVID-19 deaths today or a month from now or six months from now may or may not minimize the human costs of the pandemic when the full spectrum of human consequences is considered. The last global depression created conditions for a catastrophic world war that killed roughly 75 to 80 million people. Is that a possibility? The downside risks and costs of every approach are real, frightening, and depressing, no matter how little one thinks of reopening now.
These facts may not be evident from the least thoughtful proponents of reopening, many of whom advance arguments that are uninformed, dismissive of experts, or callous. But the warnings of thoughtful shutdown skeptics warrant careful study, not stigma rooted in the false pretense that they don’t have any plausible concerns or value human life.
Opening up the economy without adequate testing, contact tracing and isolation protocols produces a recession that is the same or worse than with those measures in place with more dead people.
Because not locking down doesn't work.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
5 common arguments for reopening the economy -- and why experts say they are flawed | CNN
The economy is plummeting, and millions of Americans need to get back to work. But experts say some arguments for reopening the economy now are short-sighted or flawed.
5 common arguments for reopening the economy -- and why experts say they are flawed
(CNN)The economy is plummeting, and tens of millions of Americans need to get back to work. But at what cost?
We know there are health consequences to keeping the economy closed, and some say thousands of Americans are at risk of "deaths of despair."
But as states try to balance saving lives and saving livelihoods, experts say some arguments for reopening the economy now are short-sighted or flawed. Here are some examples:
ARGUMENT: Keep the elderly at home, but let young or healthy people go back to work
Studies suggest 25% to 50% of coronavirus carriers don't have symptoms. But asymptomatic carriers can still infect others, including the more vulnerable.
There's actually a "huge swath" of young people who have underlying conditions, such as obesity, respiratory diseases, autoimmune disorders and "unprecedented" levels of type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Greg Poland, an infectious disease professor at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.
Young adults are sick and spreading coronavirus -- but they can help stop it
Even young people who are otherwise healthy can suffer severe complications. Their strong immune systems can overreact to the virus, a phenomenon doctors call cytokine storms.
"I just want to make sure everybody knows that no matter what their age is, it can seriously affect them. And it can seriously mess them up, like it messed me up," said Dimitri Mitchell, 18.
The Iowa teen said he might have contracted the virus while working at a grocery store. His condition deteriorated so badly, he needed to be hospitalized. His mother said she worried he might "fall asleep and never wake up."
"I just hope everybody's responsible, because it's nothing to joke about," the teen said. "I want everybody to make sure they're following social distancing guidelines and the group limits. And just listen to all the rules and precautions and stay up to date with the news and make sure they're informed."
ARGUMENT: We didn't shut down the economy for SARS or swine flu
Unlike SARS and swine flu, the novel coronavirus is both highly contagious and especially deadly, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta said.
"SARS was also a coronavirus, and it was a new virus at the time," Gupta said. "In the end, we know that SARS ended up infecting 8,000 people around the world and causing around 800 deaths. So very high fatality rate, but it didn't turn out to be very contagious."
The Spanish flu killed more than 50 million people. These lessons could help avoid a repeat with coronavirus
The swine flu, or H1N1, "was very contagious and infected some 60 million people in the United States alone within a year," Gupta said. "But it was far less lethal than the flu even — like 1/3 as lethal as the flu."
What makes the novel coronavirus different is that "this is both very contagious ... and it appears to be far more lethal than the flu as well," Gupta said. "So both those things ... are why we're taking this so seriously."
It's impossible to pinpoint the exact death rate for Covid-19. On one hand, the death rate could be much lower if there are many survivors who never got tested.
On the other hand, researchers say the outbreak started earlier than previously thought, meaning it's possible early deaths from Covid-19 were never diagnosed as such.
As of May 11, more than 4.1 million people around the world have been infected, and more than 284,000 have died, according to data from Johns Hopkins University..
more...
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I think it's better to say that opening up before containment measures are in place will result in a worse economy. They don't care about science, just pocketbook.5 common arguments for reopening the economy -- and why experts say they are flawed | CNN
The economy is plummeting, and millions of Americans need to get back to work. But experts say some arguments for reopening the economy now are short-sighted or flawed.www.cnn.com
5 common arguments for reopening the economy -- and why experts say they are flawed
(CNN)The economy is plummeting, and tens of millions of Americans need to get back to work. But at what cost?
We know there are health consequences to keeping the economy closed, and some say thousands of Americans are at risk of "deaths of despair."
But as states try to balance saving lives and saving livelihoods, experts say some arguments for reopening the economy now are short-sighted or flawed. Here are some examples:
ARGUMENT: Keep the elderly at home, but let young or healthy people go back to work
Studies suggest 25% to 50% of coronavirus carriers don't have symptoms. But asymptomatic carriers can still infect others, including the more vulnerable.
There's actually a "huge swath" of young people who have underlying conditions, such as obesity, respiratory diseases, autoimmune disorders and "unprecedented" levels of type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Greg Poland, an infectious disease professor at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.
Young adults are sick and spreading coronavirus -- but they can help stop it
Even young people who are otherwise healthy can suffer severe complications. Their strong immune systems can overreact to the virus, a phenomenon doctors call cytokine storms.
"I just want to make sure everybody knows that no matter what their age is, it can seriously affect them. And it can seriously mess them up, like it messed me up," said Dimitri Mitchell, 18.
The Iowa teen said he might have contracted the virus while working at a grocery store. His condition deteriorated so badly, he needed to be hospitalized. His mother said she worried he might "fall asleep and never wake up."
"I just hope everybody's responsible, because it's nothing to joke about," the teen said. "I want everybody to make sure they're following social distancing guidelines and the group limits. And just listen to all the rules and precautions and stay up to date with the news and make sure they're informed."
ARGUMENT: We didn't shut down the economy for SARS or swine flu
Unlike SARS and swine flu, the novel coronavirus is both highly contagious and especially deadly, CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta said.
"SARS was also a coronavirus, and it was a new virus at the time," Gupta said. "In the end, we know that SARS ended up infecting 8,000 people around the world and causing around 800 deaths. So very high fatality rate, but it didn't turn out to be very contagious."
The Spanish flu killed more than 50 million people. These lessons could help avoid a repeat with coronavirus
The swine flu, or H1N1, "was very contagious and infected some 60 million people in the United States alone within a year," Gupta said. "But it was far less lethal than the flu even — like 1/3 as lethal as the flu."
What makes the novel coronavirus different is that "this is both very contagious ... and it appears to be far more lethal than the flu as well," Gupta said. "So both those things ... are why we're taking this so seriously."
It's impossible to pinpoint the exact death rate for Covid-19. On one hand, the death rate could be much lower if there are many survivors who never got tested.
On the other hand, researchers say the outbreak started earlier than previously thought, meaning it's possible early deaths from Covid-19 were never diagnosed as such.
As of May 11, more than 4.1 million people around the world have been infected, and more than 284,000 have died, according to data from Johns Hopkins University..
more...
Because not locking down doesn't work.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Was reading some stuff about the 1918 pandemic. They had a lot of idiots protesting masks and lock down rules back then too and there was larger second waves in places that opened up against advice or stopped following the safety measures. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I prefer NPI (Non Pharmaceutical Interventions) that encompass a variety of measures that range from from strict lock downs to a more relaxed, but science driven approach, Lockdown is a bit pejorative, very few places actually did a full lock down, many businesses like hardware stores and department stores are open here, but there are many measures in place.
I think opening restaurants, bars and theaters is a serious mistake, meat packing plants will need to reconfigure and space the work flowout and improve the ventilation along with worker PPE and frequent testing. So many meat packing plant workers have been infected they will be able to take advantage of herd immunity in the plants in a month and place immune workers between the vulnerable.
Testing is still inadequate in most places and outbreaks will get way from them before they are caught. We all know what is gonna happen to Donald's reopening "scheme", failure, economic setback and massive death.
Last edited:
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Threader - Good threads every day
Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.
threader.app
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Could you give some examples of "economic setbacks" of reopening versus locked down?
I hope you do a better job than you did with "anarchy".
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
MidwestGorilla219
Well-Known Member
Cheeseburgers
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
To reprise the CDC’s own expansively defined WITH Covid-death numbers (63,469) through May 2nd, the share of total deaths and the mortality rates for the three Nations of Covid were are follows:
In short, if you are thinking straight, you do not stop social congregation in the leisure, hospitality, personal services and retail sectors to protect the 276 million persons in the Kids Nation and Parent & Workers Nation, who comprise the overwhelming share of congregants there.
Their risk of death is tiny. Indeed, the Covid-mortality rate of 5.9 per 100,000 for the Parents & Workers Nation is barely above the mortality rate for suicide among that age group and less than 1% of the cohort’s total annual mortality rate of more than 600 per 100,000.
Excerpted from an article written by David Stockman.
- Kid Nation under 15 years: 60.9 million persons and 13 deaths (0.02% of total) or 0.02 per 100,000;
- Parents & Workers Nation 15-64: 214.5 million persons, 12,637 deaths (19.9% of total) and 5.9 per 100,000;
- Grandparents & Great Grandparents Nation 65 and older: 52.4 million persons, 50,819 deaths (80% of total) and 97.0 per 100,000.
In short, if you are thinking straight, you do not stop social congregation in the leisure, hospitality, personal services and retail sectors to protect the 276 million persons in the Kids Nation and Parent & Workers Nation, who comprise the overwhelming share of congregants there.
Their risk of death is tiny. Indeed, the Covid-mortality rate of 5.9 per 100,000 for the Parents & Workers Nation is barely above the mortality rate for suicide among that age group and less than 1% of the cohort’s total annual mortality rate of more than 600 per 100,000.
Excerpted from an article written by David Stockman.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
I don't ever want to hear again that the GOP is pro life, they're pro life as long as it doesn't affect corporate profits. If money is at stake then it's ok to smother grandma with a pillow tho.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I defer to your honed senses on that one.