Printable View
Welcome to posting :) (I reckon I lurked for at least a year before actually joining)
To be fair, that study shows eBay and Amazon as performing best out of the market places, which is probably what people would expect, but... yeah... not really a good picture for any of them.
So is the FDA :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GuiltyBedflower
I have done a fair amount of looking into this and as far as i can see there is nothing definitive. There has been though a lot of people though talking about herd immunity and i think its just that scientists and doctor are trying to push back on the narrative that this is a definite thing when we just dont know enough yet.Quote:
He seems pretty credible as an expert to me. And, in latest one, he was definitely at pains to point out that we can't guarantee antibody immunity. That made me think there may have been some recent study (or something similar) that had led to him changing his tone.
It's sort of funny that center-right Clintonistas want to paint anyone to their left as "right wing."
I'm beginning to wonder if the "spectrum" is actually a circle in their hindbrains rather than a geometric line. The reality is probably more of a bent line centered on globalist authoritarians (a.k.a. "Tories") fighting battles against two very different camps of populists at each end.
Pushback against the lockdowns' economic destruction is not a sole phenomenon of the "far right" as the complicit media have portrayed it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTA62vKwr_o&t=321s
I don't know what the correct approach is and I've stayed as locked down myself as possible, but I am beginning to wonder what might really be going on.
Don’t be silenced by 'whataboutism' silencing tactic
Use of the term can be translated as "Oh ****, I've been caught and my house of cards is coming down."Quote:
If you ask a person condemning a politician he doesn’t like why similar behavior by a politician he likes never earned his disdain, prepare to be accused of “whataboutism.”
That's not what I got from that article at all. They're saying the whataboutism is the person deflecting the question in an attempt to avoid and invalidate it because "your guy" did the same thing. It isn't "oh ****, I've been caught and my house of cards is coming down." it's "Your point isn't valid because your guy did it too!".Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
It's a horseshoe, not a straight line. Once you get to the ends, they are pretty close together, but not at exactly the same place. More like: Similar means, similar reasoning, just not quite the same goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
I've been thinking about this, lately. I have no issue with being locked down. Makes no difference to me, at this point in the year. They want me to work form home and not spend an hour in traffic each day? Sure, that works for me. Heck, I was trying to push up from two days of telecommuting to three, and then possibly to four. Now they are saying all five. Not complaining.Quote:
I don't know what the correct approach is and I've stayed as locked down myself as possible, but I am beginning to wonder what might really be going on.
However, Idaho has about 1,700 cases statewide, at this time. The bulk of those are in the Boise area, but the Boise area also has the bulk of the population of the state, too. So, if we have about 1,000 cases, spread through a population of around 400,000 (Boise plus surrounding suburbs), that is only 0.25% of the people, many of whom would be clustered. My odds of encountering even one person is pretty low...unless I encounter a whole lot of people.
On the other hand, this is a pretty locked down state. We've been more aggressive than several surrounding states. If that had not been the case, then the spread through the community would have been greater and indiscriminate. So, we've reduced the odds of encounter greatly due to the aggressive social distancing. If we didn't do that, what would have happened? It's a bit hard to say for certain in a state that is mostly rural areas.
Just to be clear, I didn't paint you as right wing. If you go back and read my post you'll see I explicitly avoided doing so. I did that because I have no idea where you're politics lie because I've never seen you actually assert your own position. Hence my assertion of JAQing, because if you never take a position you never have to defend one. Attacking a position is easy but largely pointless. Proposing and defending one is harder but has worth.Quote:
It's sort of funny that center-right Clintonistas want to paint anyone to their left as "right wing."
As for WhatAboutism, here's your quote from post 608: "My point is that demonizing Trump regarding China is pointless since his opposition now tries doing the same on steroids." You can argue whether whataboutism is a valid form of argument or not (I personally think it's simple deflection), but you're really going to struggle to make the case that you're not engaging in it.
Reading between the lines I get the impression you might be "far" left (scare quotes because I feel the left in America falls far to the right of the left in Europe), in which case you'd probably find our politics approximately line up. I'm centre left in Europe which seems roughly similar to far left in the US. Certainly I agree with you on the only position you've come close to actually proposing (nationally provided health care) although even then you didn't assert a defined position and instead couched it in terms of what you didn't like rather than what you did, leaving your own position uncertain.
I hear that a lot and I disagree with it. The concept of politics being a line of any shape doesn't really stand up. It's a swirly, amorphous blob of coagulated opinions. The classic left right thing can provide a handy shortcut as long as everyone understands that's all it is. Once you start twisting that line into loops and horseshoes you're really just taking a flawed analogy and adding better flaws.Quote:
It's a horseshoe, not a straight line
I've been thinking about this too. Should people in low population areas be subject to the same lockdown conditions as people high population areas? On the surface I'd say, no, it seems silly. But then I had a conversation with my Dad (who's high risk due to age but lives in a low population area) and he disagreed. "Funky," he said, cause that's what he calls me, "if they let me out of lockdown, the first thing I'd do is go down the pub." The point was that while lifting lockdowns in rural areas might be lower risk than in cities, it's still a substantial risk if people use it for socialising. I think that basically agrees with your point that encountering a few people is unlikely unless you encounter a lot.Quote:
My odds of encountering even one person is pretty low...unless I encounter a whole lot of people.
Trump, his surrogates, and Faux news are really turning up the heat on blaming China for the virus. They are implying China had very nefarious intents. Trump won't name the leader of China though. He stays away from that. Here is what caught my ear yesterday when Trump was speaking. He was asked what kind of punishments he could use against China. One of the things he mentioned was more tariffs.
My god what a moron! No matter how many times he is told, and it is reported on, he continues to say China is paying for the tariffs. He knows that isn't true, Americans are paying for them, but he just goes on and on. But saying to punish China he'll use tariffs, when it will punish Americans, just really throws me into a tizzy. What a moron...
To be fair, it is starting to sound increasingly like China wasn't quite as forthcoming as they could have been when this started although I'm finding it difficult to find anything concrete either way. But, yeah, the "they'll do anything to stop me getting re-elected" comment was particularly bizarre.
So, is Kim Jong un or not un?
That will color our relationship with China more than the virus if he's not un.
I still wonder how much of the thinking out there aligns with Dylan Ratigan's rant to Jimmy Dore above.
He seems convinced that stay-at-home/lockdown orders are being exploited as a way to consolidate more of the economy into the hands of big business and the big banks. He even seems to go further, suggesting this is an attempt at social and economic engineering rather than just exploitation of fortuitous circumstances.
Whether engineered, merely taken advantage of cynically, or by coincidence though... there does seem to be some truth in the net result he suggests.
I haven't seen it examined on "the right" so much as emoted in pain as small businesses and workers suffer. A few like Ratigan on "the left" seem to be trying to dissect and determine what may really be going on.
All of that is on top of the biological suffering due to the pandemic itself.
Another portion of that discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvYRVZf4FEU
IMO, in the next 10 years, the relationship between China and the United States will become worse and worse. After this difficult 10 years, the relationship between China and the United States will improve again.
I'd say no but how do you micro manage a state like that. I live in Ca. and it has lots of densely populated areas but because of the large size of Ca there is also lots of rural areas. We have counties with no virus cases. The problem is already so complex it doesn't need more complexity added.Quote:
Should people in low population areas be subject to the same lockdown conditions as people high population areas?
I'm curious what the next two or three weeks brings, if these early reopenings are successful then all the states will follow. I do worry the politicians will be politicians and try to find ways to hide the truth if the virus spread worsens.
If they open up smaller communities, then the larger ones will flock to them. They've talked about removing lockdown on my town because we only have 4 cases in a population of ~150,000, but if we open up, people from larger cities like Toronto or Ottawa will definitely come into town for their fixes.
Yeah. I can imagine that a small town with a duplex or triplex theater that started showing 1st-run flicks again would find itself quickly overrun with bored urban hipsters.
I think you're probably right about people flocking to open areas. Hell, the first weekend of the lockdown over here enough douchebags flocked to Snowdon to over crowd it. That's a mountain with it's own freakin' national park for godsake. How do you overcrowd that?
If you could somehow keep the cities locked down but open up the countryside and prevent travel between the two it could work but I've no idea how you would police that.
There's no probably about it... at first the local gumints here tried to close dem beaches to prevent things from breaking out, you know, doing the responsible thing? Then some bum wipe got the crazy idea of asking the State Attorney General for an opinion if they had the autoritay to do that... in short he replied, they do not, that in time of crisis the powers of execution lay solely with the Govenor. So the beaches were re-opened one day.... one day..... dear gawd it was a disaster. That following Monday the state shut down all public access to beaches, lakes, rivers, etc. Honestly, I'm surprised there wasn't a huge spike in reported cases after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
-tg
We saw a spike exactly 7 days after the bank holiday. We were sill locked down but, yeah, lots of people went out and you can see the effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBXZhFekv6Q
It sounds to me like officials may well know the truth and are taking time to gradually spin it out in bits and pieces so people don't over react.
That truth is probably that effective vaccines are still far off and that the only real hope is for everyone to get infected so the "great winnowing" can occur. Mitigation efforts may only be a set of ways to let the health care system stretch out its resources to assist those who get seriously ill rather than becoming overwhelmed.
This might help explain the dire projections on the one hand, yet moves to "open up" lockdowns at the same time.
We may not be far off now from the day when they let this cat out of the bag. Only an early vaccine might be able to change the picture.
Feels more than a little bit Malthusian.
Conspiracy UNCOVERED!
https://i.redd.it/3fuaep6egrw41.jpg
-tg
Vaccines are a bit of an arms race. China is testing (early stages), the US, EU and India are all getting close. However, nobody can create the number of vaccines that would be needed for the world, and the various countries are dancing around the obvious result: They intend to use the vaccines for themselves first, and share...maybe.
We've known since the beginning that a vaccine could take upwards of a year to develop. We still haven't found one for HIV and that broke over 30 years ago. Vaccines aren't quick to develop and there's no guarantee that one will be developed at all. And you're right that lockdowns are primarily to do with preventing the health services from being overwhelmed. That's why you've been hearing about "flattening the curve" since the very beginning of this. It's not news and I'm not sure that CNN article is claiming it as news.
The news in that article is that the death toll has been much, much higher than the Whitehouse has been predicting and that Trump's push to reopen is dangerously optimistic. If he continues to pursue it, it will be responsible for tens of thousands of additional deaths.
There are two possible ways in which a pandemic ends.
1. Total containment leading the virus to die out. This is pursued via contact tracing and aggressive quarantine of those likely to have been affected. Note that this is extremely unlikely to be successful but can and has worked in the past. However, it's no longer pursuable as soon as the virus has spread beyond your ability to trace it. In the case of Corona it's almost certain that this had failed before anyone was even aware it was a thing.
2. Herd immunity. This can either be achieved via a vaccine or by enough people becoming infected and surviving. With most viruses that we have a prior knowledge of we have a fighting chance of developing a vaccine promptly enough so that it can be a significant factor in achieving herd immunity but with a new and particularly virulent virus like Corona it's a mitigation at best.
That might sound all doom and gloom but it may not as bad as it sounds. Viruses with an R factor > 1 (R is the number of people a typical carrier will infect) describe some form of exponential curve when they start out with the size of the exponent being a function of R and that makes them look damn scary. But the immunity rate in the absence of a vaccine, describes the same curve with a lag (a vaccine reduces and potentially removes the lag). Further, as herd immunity increases, the lack of vectors the virus can use to find infectible targets further flattens the infection curve, leading to an S curve. Note that the risk at any point in time is not represented by the area under the infection curve on the graph as many people assume, it's described by the area between the infection curve and the immunity curve. So if you can be highly successful in flattening the infection curve you can reduce the risk towards zero as 1. the immunity curve rises to meet it and 2. the infection curve is suppressed by the reduction in infectible population. Realistically you'll never achieve zero but if you can keep the R rating below 1 then you can reduce the effects to an absolute minimum.
TLDR, the effects of this will be all about a responsible handling of how we flatten and continue to flatten the infection curve. That's why governments around the world have such an unpleasant choice to make right now. They could keep us all locked down until a vaccine is found, if ever, or they can lift lockdowns in a highly controlled manner that keeps the R rating at less than 1. In a perfect world we'd probably pick the former option. It would certainly mean fewer deaths but it's not really feasible. so this is going to be about that controlled lift of lockdown with heavy monitoring so that we can track that R rating.
The assertion in that CNN article (and I suspect it's correct) is that a rapid lifting of the lockdowns, as Trump seems to be advocating, would lead the R rating to rapidly rise back above 1, with disastrous results.
My humble opinion:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
(1) As far as I know, there has never been a precedent for the successful development of a coronavirus vaccine.
(2) I don't think China could achieve a leading position in vaccine research and development
But sometimes China may create miracles. For example, 40 years ago, the Chinese government developed anti-malarial medicines at the request of the Vietnamese government. China concentrated all the medical resources of the whole country to develop this medicine, and finally developed the magic medicine "artemisinin". This is one of the few Chinese contributions to world medicine. Another contribution seems to be insulin.
(3) The only way to end the virus is through group immunization.
(4) The number of infected people has been greatly concealed, which has led to the exaggeration of the lethality of the virus.
Note: The number of infections was not intentionally concealed, but because there was no detection. In fact, there is no need to detect.
The actual number of infections should be more than 100-300 times the number of people tested, but most people had no symptoms and healed themselves.
Well that not exactly true as anyone who had had a yearly Flu jab can tell you. The Flu jab is a vaccine for Flu, the biggest problem we have is Flu rapidly mutates and so we constantly have to adapt the vaccine year to year.Quote:
As far as I know, there has never been a precedent for the successful development of a coronavirus vaccine.
Sars-Cov-2 appear to mutate much more slowly to the point where Scientist believe that a single vaccine may be all that is needed.
Judging from what the leading scientist are saying i am feeling cautiously optimistic that an effective vaccine will be developed
Many Scientists point of a lack of funding and political will as to the main reasons more development hasn't been carried out on Chronovirus's in the past, and well they sure have both of them in spades now!
The flu is not a coronavirus; the common cold is. However, I remain optimistic like you and hope that this pandemic will help make large jumps in the world's ability to make effective vaccienes.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Ahem i stand corrected your right, as soon as i read your post i knew you were right so i have obviously somehow managed to mix up Flu with the common cold.Quote:
The flu is not a coronavirus; the common cold is. However, I remain optimistic like you and hope that this pandemic will help make large jumps in the world's ability to make effective vaccienes.
Ok so we dont yet have a vaccine for any of the existing coronavirus's but i am still optimistic. I would bet never has more money and resource been thrown at trying to develop a single vaccine before.
I'm basing the start of the quarantine off of when I went into forced work from home status... because of a co-worker's comment this morning, I looked it up. That was Mar 16... Today is Day 51... or Covid the 51st.
And for just a little more fun:
Alternative time units
50 days can be converted to one of these units:
4,320,000 seconds
72,000 minutes
1200 hours
50 days
7 weeks and 1 day
13.66% of 2020
There's some depressing numbers for you.
-tg
There may be a precedent for a corona virus vaccine. A few groups felt they were ready to go with a SARS vaccine, but didn't get to roll it out because SARS simply vanished. That's one of the reason people are optimistic about a vaccine for COVID. It's considered to be a relatively low bar, when it comes to vaccines.
Of course, we don't always manage to get over low bars.
We all do that. It leads to a particularly virulent strain called Man-Flu.Quote:
i have obviously somehow managed to mix up Flu with the common cold.
Wasn't he in Vikings?Quote:
Covid the 51st
Since a use a wheelchair, Low bars are my favorite kind of bars. Right now now I'll take any height bar so I can have a frosty mug of beer and a sandwich without having to fix it myself.Quote:
Of course, we don't always manage to get over low bars.
No I believe he was the Pope.Quote:
Covid the 51st
Wasn't he in Vikings?
Covid the 51st - Son of Utrid...Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Pope John Covid XXXXXIQuote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
-tg
No, not the Vikings. I think he played for the Bears.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Fullback... for the '9ers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
-tg
100% Juice !!!!!
Free Range and Organic.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Trump administration shelves CDC guide to reopening the country
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation...pening-country
Based on Trump's latest graph on the projection of the virus spreading it just isn't necessary:
To get a meaningful picture you need to scale by population:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lCkmeVpbeM
Quote:
Graphics can be remarkably useful but they can also be remarkably misleading if you don't read them properly.
Not if you are Trump and you have your trusty Sharpie in your pocket...Quote:
Graphics can be remarkably useful but they can also be remarkably misleading if you don't read them properly.
You certainly do ned to scale for population and it amazes me that people seem to miss that (I suspect it's often wilfully missed:rolleyes:). Though I will say that only scaling for population is also woefully inadequate if you're trying to judge the effectiveness of a nations response. There are too many other factors at play. Not just size population but density of population, age of population, wealth of population, even gender and ethnicity of population. Then you've got to consider when the virus arrived in the country, ease of travel in the country pre-virus, a bunch of cultural factors... the list of things that can come into play is endless and I'm honestly left thinking that national comparisons of statistics are largely just a stick to beat each other with. That said we're currently running worst in Europe so yay for us.
I think you can see whether a nation's failing without needing to look at the stats. The US is failing. Sorry, it just is. And I find Trump's continuing politicisation of this disgusting. The UK's failing too. We still haven't got the PPE we need, the Turkish shipment turned up late and, when it did, it turns out half the contents didn't meet standards so can't be used. We almost met our testing target... for one day. And now we're saying that the problem is that we have the supply but there's not enough demand. Really? Because I don't know a single person in this country who wouldn't have a test tomorrow if they could. The problem is not the demand, it's the logistics of allocating the supply we have.
Yeah, I just noticed today that the UK was leading Europe in deaths. But the US is leading the world, by a wide margin. I still think the numbers from various countries are being manipulated for political reasons and also by the fact they are just not testing.
Now if you want to scale for population, since the US has @ 5-6x the population of the UK, Spain, Italy.... then the US is doing a great job. But the shear size of the US, 15, 20 and even 30x of European countries has to be considered. New York alone has about the same amount of deaths as Spain, 26,000+, so really, population density is a much bigger factor than just population.
I think the whole count is also being skewed by deaths at home that aren't diagnosed as the virus. Elderly in areas that would just would just chalk it up to a flu/cold/whatever to old age and getting sick. The death count due to the virus, in my opinion, may be greater by a magnitude or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Russia has some clumsy doctors, they keep falling out of windows.
https://www.vox.com/2020/5/6/2124855...-windows-death
In NY 66% of hospitalizations were of people who stayed at home.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPFxQ4TfCx0
It has been funny watching vested interests trying to explain the findings away, but many serious professionals have been reduced to muttering and wondering what is going on.
All we can do is await more explanation, but it seems clear things are not quite as the "given wisdom" has said.
I don't see why that's shocking. Based on the categories shown, that doesn't seem surprising at all. After all, if I got COVID today, I would fall into that category. I certainly DO stay at home...most of the time. However, I do go out to get food roughly once a week. If the virus is circulating widely, then the only times that I do go out, I will tend to be going to places with larger circulations of people (grocery stores). So, it's not like I'm taking random trips out of the house where I have a random chance of interacting with a person, and a random chance of encountering somebody who carries the virus. It seems like I'd be more likely, simply because everybody has to eat, at least occasionally.
I haven't been in a store of any kind since March 17th, but I watched this coming and started stocking up a little at a time since January. I admit that option only has another week or two left though, so I've been looking into the shop online for pickup or delivery options.
The study suggests to me that "shelter at home" might offer little or no real protection though. It may even cast doubt on the common sense idea that hand washing and masks are doing any good.
I won't suggest that people should abandon any of those things, but it does make me want to know more. Not everyone is in a financial position like mine and unemployment is really hurting a lot of families.
If everyone (or the vast majority of people) is staying at home due to lockdowns, then having the majority of cases coming from people who are staying at home is exactly what you'd expect. It doesn't imply in any way that having everyone staying at home isn't supressing the overall infection rate.
Yeah, I've got family that are hurting financially because of the shut down. I'm glad our state moved quickly because the case loads could have been overwhelming. But in my area the results have been surprising to me. Hospital cases have been low, that's good. But my son works at a grocery store and not one employee has been infected. At the grocery store I shop the most they don't even wear masks (I do) and all the regulars clerks are there. Just lucky, maybe. I don't doubt how infectious the virus is and if one person in the store gets it then it will spread. Just look at the meat plants. But the study Cuomo was talking about seems to show that people are bringing the virus home or spreading it when they visit. So unless your a hermit then your at risk. I'm starting to lean more to the reopening faster agenda. If we had more testing capacity I definitely would say reopen. A lot of people are suffering, getting buried in debt, businesses going bankrupt from the closures. Hell we're all just guessing, I'll continue to wear my mask and see what happens.
Quote:
It doesn't imply in any way that having everyone staying at home isn't supressing the overall infection rate.
Damn right it doesnt
I find it difficult to understand why anyone would believe that staying away from other people would NOT offer protection. Clearly if you dont come into contact with other people that may have the virus then you are much less likely to contract the virus.Quote:
The study suggests to me that "shelter at home" might offer little or no real protection though. It may even cast doubt on the common sense idea that hand washing and masks are doing any good.
In the US I wouldn't say the VAST majority of people are staying home. It was a small study but it does seem to raise the question, why do essential workers have a lower rate of infection than people who stay at home. Maybe having families confined inside a house results in everyone getting infected if one of the family gets infected. It's just food for thought.Quote:
If everyone (or the vast majority of people) is staying at home due to lockdowns, then having the majority of cases coming from people who are staying at home is exactly what you'd expect. It doesn't imply in any way that having everyone staying at home isn't supressing the overall infection rate.
So the way I read your logic is:-
When People are confined in close proximity they're more likely to spread the virus to each other
The virus is most likely to be introduced to such a group when a member goes out and returns
Lots of people aren't fully locking down, meaning they are exiting and returning at an unnecessary frequency
The solution is to increase the frequency at which people exit and return
I agree with all your arguments but not your conclusion.
I too really want this lockdown to lift. I'm currently losing nearly £2000 a month as a result of this and I'm not rich. I also live in a part of the country that is minimally infected so it feels like the risk is minimal. But this has killed 30, 000 people in the UK so far and the cost of lifting the lockdown measures prematurely could make that far, FAR worse.
I think that's the key, right there.Quote:
If we had more testing capacity...
Where did I say I had a solution?Quote:
The solution is to increase the frequency at which people exit and return
It definitely could. Sorry your losing money but you haven't mentioned having to go hungry or being behind on all of your bills, so staying home is manageable. I wish we had proof of what's the best course of action. I'm going to keep limiting my exposure because of my age and it doesn't really have any negative effect on my life.Quote:
the cost of lifting the lockdown measures prematurely could make that far, FAR worse.
In so far as we're all proposing solutions. I didn't mean to imply that you were claiming you had a definitive or proven one, you clearly weren't claiming that. I just disagree with the proposed solution you said you were leaning to based on the argument you were making.Quote:
Where did I say I had a solution?
To be honest I'm not trying to make any argument. I'm just trying to make sense of what's going on. I've been very strong on the stay at home method but then some study comes along like the one Cuomo was referencing and it muddies the waters. It doesn't make sense that essential workers have such a low infection rate. Like I said before, we're all just guessing. I'm for error on the side of safety but at the same time I know there are a tremendous amount of people who are really starting to hurt. Given the choice, my guess is these people would rather risk the virus than see their family suffer or lose everything they've built over the years. The fact they could infect someone else is a secondary issue to them. I'm glad I'm not in that position and I don't have to make that choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
In terms of essential workers having a low infection rate in that case, I suspect it is because those essential workers are similar to the ones here... they have gloves and masks (and the option of washing their hands etc), whereas the members of the public generally don't bother.
I can see a shop from my window, and while the staff all have protective equipment there are lots of customers who have nothing and aren't being careful enough. This afternoon I saw several people walk up to their friends in the que and have a quick hug and chat before walking away; not the safest idea, but as long as they don't start hugging me (or many of their friends) it's their life. I'll keep using gloves and mask when I go out!
There's a lot of nuances that some of these very localized "reports" are showing... Cuomo holds up something... that just represents his area... it isn't representative of everything... it probably falls apart as soon as you cross state lines. One thing that hasto be taken into consideration is what's an essential worker. If you look at nurses and healtcare workers... well then, yes, it makes total sense. They are the ones taking the extra precautions to make sure they aren't getting infected. Many of them don't really go home... they go either to hotel or to some other "living" station - I've seen photos of one worker who converted the back of their station wagon into sleeping quarters - just so they don't have to worry about infecting their family. So... it does make sense... if you think it through. If you look beyond the numbers. And that's the problem with all these "studies" ... they have to be taken with a grain of salt... you have to look past the numbers and think about the why. Why is that number the way it is. Because the numbers are lying to us. And that's going to bite us in the arse here shortly. We're going to pay the price for it big time. I worry that the bounce is going to be worse than the bounce from the Spanish Flu 100 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
-tg
Essential workers aren't that well protected, at least not around here. My daughter is a critical care nurse, they have been trying to limit them to one gown and mask per 12 hour shift. When your working with a contagious patient your suppose to throw the gown and mask away everytime you leave the room. My son works in a grocery store, they were given one mask and told to put it in a plastic bag after each shift and reuse it until it was hard to breathe or got a hole. The grocery store I shop at, they don't even wear masks.
I agree that the report Cuomo was talking about can't be given a too much significance but it shouldn't just be dismissed either. One of the things about the report that should be considered is it is not about infection percentages, it's about hospitalization percentages. And the large majority of them were 50+. retired or unemployed. So those numbers make a little more sense. Still I am amazed that no one where my son works has been infected(of course no has been tested so....), I'm glad for him and me because he is living with me for a while. It's a little scary. lol
Hats off to both your son and daughter. You're daughter in particular. Health Care workers are getting hammered over here at the moment and I imagine it's the same over there. But your son too. I don't see shop workers being particularly well looked after at the moment.
The picture you describe isn't that different to over here. Proper PPE is tight for the medical community (we seem to have done OK in hospitals, eventually, but we've really let those in care homes down) and it's pretty much non-existent for shop workers. Where it exists for shop workers it's improvised - e.g. bike masks rather than medical face masks.
I don't see where that video says that key workers are suffering more than anyone else though. In fact, at 2:17 he says exactly the opposite. Medical care workers aren't being hit.
The conclusion of that video, really, is given at 2:54. They believe people aren't actually taking the personal measures they should be. They're not staying home (even if they say they are), they're not using masks (though most of the evidence I've seen is that the improvised masks probably make this worse and we probably ought to be leaving the medical ones for the health workers) and not using hand sanitizer.
Given the choice I suspect you're right but that's because people respond to the threat they can see and are very short-termist. People can see their bank balance dropping into debt but they don't see the deaths this is causing because they happen behind closed doors in hospitals and unless someone they are actually close to dies the whole thing can be looked at in the abstract. That's why, in this case and contrary to our usual instincts, we should not be given the choice.Quote:
Given the choice, my guess is these people would rather risk the virus than see their family suffer or lose everything they've built over the years.
No, at 2:54 he resorts to scare and spin to try to pump hot air into a deflated narrative. The important question is how and why this narrative has been a failure, at least within the limits of a study on those 1000 cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
At least he was honest enough to present the facts after his experts failed to explain them away after trying very hard for two weeks. The study seems to suggest that following the neoliberal authoritarian guidelines is actually a risk factor and a significant one. Personally I believe that reads too much into the study but it does raise important questions. We need far more information.
Trying to turn on inconvenient truth on its head and claim that it somehow proves its opposite is silly. Sure feels like one more "faux left" religious argument that denies the science.