Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

The problem is that your calculation is based on a percentage of the total population, that's not how the projections are calculated. They're calculated by multiplying the death rate by the projected infection rate. If the death rate is being overestimated as you posit (and I suspect you're right) it means the infection rate is being underestimated by the same amount the death rate is being overestimated.

---

Sure, but consider this. Let K = known infected cases, U = unknown infected cases (asymptomatic, mildly symptomatic but never tested, etc.), and D = Dead. Let K/(K+U) remain consistent throughout.

So, let's use some round numbers. 100,000 infected in the USA, ~1450 dead. Extrapolated out, once 100,000,000 are infected, that would mean 1,450,000 dead (not considering potential increased death due to lack of health care issues from so many infected simultaneously). But hang on. What if when there were 100,000 infected there were 400,000 asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic that go undiagnosed. That puts K/(K+U) at 0.2.

Ok, what does that mean. That means that K can never reach 100,000,000 in the USA. Why? Because if K = 100,000,000, then K+U = 500,000,000. The upper limit on what K+U can be is the total population of the USA, and the population of the USA is nowhere near 500,000,000. Also, for K+U to equal the total population, that would mean 100% of the USA were infected knowingly or unknowingly, and no projection that I've seen assumes a total infection rate.

So, having a sense for what K/(U+K) is has a huge impact on final projections.

Actually, we are somewhat near 500,000,000, though not there. We're about 80% of that.

Still, this is both optimistic and pessimistic. It's optimistic in assuming there's a large percentage that are asymptomatic. That does seem likely to be true with our level of testing, but it's still coming from an optimistic perspective. It's also pessimistic in assuming that the disease runs its full course. Ideally, the total number of infections and the total number of deaths will be FAR less, regardless of asymptomatic or not. That only happens if we taken action, though, and the worst case is useful as a spur to action, if nothing else.

Last point of clarification from me. When I say that projections are likely overstating things due to the unknown factor of how many infected but undiagnosed people there are, I'm not talking about any near term projections. I'm specifically referring to these:

-Projected peaks
-Total numbers when all is said and done

So, when Governor Cuomo comes out and says "17% of infected are hospitalized, 3% are in ICU (most on ventilator), so we project that we'll need 35,000 ventilators at our peak", I'm saying that I'd be surprised if their peak ventilator usage is ever over 20,000. Because 17% of infected aren't hospitalized, 17% of known infected are. 3% of infected aren't in ICU, 3% of known infected are. And so the expected peak of simultaneous infected and peak of ventilator usage is taking from a pool of people that can't and won't ever even be in the hospital - those that have already unknowingly had it and recovered or currently unknowingly have it and don't know it and don't need to be hospitalized.

Again, it all depends on how frequently people get it and don't know it. And right now no one knows what that number is. But it is a number greater than 0, and the bigger the better.

OK, I see your argument. But it relies on the official estimates being under by a factor of five, which seems extremely optimistic to me. Particularly given that Italy is currently experiencing almost a thousand deaths a day out of a population of just over 60 million, just over a tenth the size of the US. Their total death toll is almost at 10, 000 already and is still increasing exponentially.

Indeed, their death rate is also sky rocketing because they've passed the point where their health service has the capacity to cope. This gets really catastrophic because 1. People no longer get the treatment they need, even those with a serious infection and 2. the medical infrastructure breaks down because the people who support are dying (46 doctors in Italy so far).

So, while I hope your analysis is correct, I fear it's not. I suspect you've grossly over-estimated the inaccuracies of the official predictions and failed to account for the increase in death rate experienced when the infected surpass the ability of the infrastructure to cope.

The numbers I provided were ONLY for illustrative purposes. What if K/(K+U) is 0.2 - or put another way, what if for every known infected person, there are 4 people who won't be diagnosed because they either have no symptoms or mild enough symptoms that they either don't seek medical treatment, or do seek medical treatment and aren't tested.

I don't have any idea what the ratio of K/(K+U) is, and right now neither does anyone else. The only thing that is certain is that K/(K+U) is < 1, since U is clearly > 0.

And Dr. Fauci is on the record in the last day or so that in the end, the true fatality rate in the USA will likely be less than 1%, or even as low as 0.5%. For the exact reasons that I'm stating - people have it that aren't being accounted for in the current "running total" numbers.

"On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2.4% In another article in the Journal, Guan et al. report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively."

Edit: And with that, I'm officially done with this thread. Stay safe and healthy everyone.

Quote:

---

population of just over 60 million, just over a tenth the size of the US.

---

I'd say @ 330,000,000 so it's a little less than a fifth. Still the number of deaths could be alarming.

Sorry, I was taking the 500,000 figure quoted earlier. It doesn't change my position though.

Maybe we could think of it in another way: COVID-19 has been popular all over the world earlier. More than 20 million people have been infected in the US in 2019, but most have recovered on their own. Maybe when calculating the severity and mortality of COVID-19, the population base should be set to 30-50 million. In this way, the severity and mortality of COVID-19 is close to severe influenza. But COVID-19, as a newly born virus, is more contagious than influenza.

Edit:
IMO, the situation in China, Italy, and Spain are particularly serious is because that panic has caused a large number of people to flock to the hospital, which not only caused the run-up of medical resources, but also caused a large number of doctors and nurses to be infected. As a result, these doctors and nurses began to infect a large number of people who came to the hospital for testing.

When the rumors began to spread, hundreds of thousands of people in Wuhan flocked to the hospital at the same time, causing more than 3,000 doctors and nurses to be infected, as a result, they may have infected 30,000 to 60,000 people. In Italy, more than 6,000 doctors and nurses were infected, as a result, they may have infected 60,000 to 120,000 people.

Coronavirus Origin Theories
Attachment 175639
Source:https://creazilla.com/nodes/19974-co...-poster-vector

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreammanor

Maybe we could think of it in another way: COVID-19 has been popular all over the world earlier. More than 20 million people have been infected in the US in 2019, but most have recovered on their own.

---

Ehh looks to me like you're trying to say this did not originate from China, but instead from the US. Is that correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yikio99

Coronavirus Origin Theories
Attachment 175639
Source:https://creazilla.com/nodes/19974-co...-poster-vector

---

I don't know whether scientists have accurately known the origin theory of the following viruses:
Flu in 1918
SARS in 2003
H1N1 in 2009
Ebola in 2014
MERS in 2015

If scientists already know the truth, why haven't any vaccines developed against these viruses to date?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfcSmitty

Ehh looks to me like you're trying to say this did not originate from China, but instead from the US. Is that correct?

---

No, even if the massive influenza outbreak in the United States in 2019 is really COVID-19, we cannot say that it originated in the United States, just like the Spanish-flu-1918 did not originate in Spain. Birds and bats can bring the virus from thousands of kilometers away. Beijing's Swifts fly to South Africa every year for winter, with a one-way distance of 16,000 kilometers (a total of 38,000 kilometers per year). The fire in Australia also caused many birds to fly thousands of kilometers to avoid disasters elsewhere.

There are 3 meanings I want to express in post#368:
(1) The spreading of COVID-19 may be earlier than originally estimated
(2) Viruses are the common enemy of mankind. It is extremely stupid to laugh at and discriminate against other countries.
(3) Understanding the true time of the outbreak and the true source of the virus can be more helpful in solving the problem. If some people or governments always want to cover up the facts with illusions/falsehoods and rumors, it can only make the problem worse.

I totally agree with #2 and mostly with #3, but I suspect that #1 isn't quite right. There are LOADS of viruses out there. We likely encounter thousands, or millions, each day, and our bodies shrug them off. The COVID-19 virus has probably been around for a very long time. At some point, one variety of it acquired some little mutation that allowed it to get into humans, and here we are. However, it is likely that it happened not all that long before it was first noted in Wuhan. The reason I say this is that it is particularly contagious. Thus, it may have been around, and even in humans, for a long time, but whatever changed to make it so virulent probably isn't all that far back.

My understanding is that there are plenty of corona-family viruses in bat populations, and perhaps more contact with bats in China than in the US (we used to have a fair amount, through spelunking, but with white nose syndrome wiping out bats across the US, contact is probably in decline).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

but I suspect that #1 isn't quite right. There are LOADS of viruses out there.

---

(1) 2019 World Military Games held in Wuhan
(2) Wuhan is a city with a population of more than 15 million
(3) Wuhan is the most important and busiest transportation hub in China. It is the central transportation hub connecting 9 provinces.
(4) Peak of returning home during Chinese New Year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dreammanor

I don't know whether scientists have accurately known the origin theory of the following viruses:
Flu in 1918
SARS in 2003
H1N1 in 2009
Ebola in 2014
MERS in 2015

If scientists already know the truth, why haven't any vaccines developed against these viruses to date?

---

Have you even tried knowing if there are already vaccines for the said viruses you mentioned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dee-u

Have you even tried knowing if there are already vaccines for the said viruses you mentioned?

---

SARS vaccine: None
H1N1 vaccine: Based on influenza vaccine.
MERS vaccine: Clinical trials have begun in September 2019. Developing a vaccine is not difficult, but very few vaccines are truly effective and approved by the FDA.
Ebola vaccine: It was only approved by the FDA on December 21, 2019, and the effect remains to be seen.

Edit:
Most of the vaccines claiming to be effective against the above viruses are ineffective. (The virus is constantly mutating)

Quote:

---

If scientists already know the truth, why haven't any vaccines developed against these viruses to date?

---

Vaccine development is generally very expensive, especially if you have to make several attempts which can happen. Its also a lengthy undertaking, in normal circumstances vaccine development takes years, and if a virus has been contained and found not be particularly virulent then there are other more cost effective ways of dealing with them.

There has to be political will to develop a vaccine as there is not much money in them so big Pharma companies wont develop them on there own they need government funding.

Quote:

---

(2) Viruses are the common enemy of mankind. It is extremely stupid to laugh at and discriminate against other countries.

---

I endorse this message.:thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Vaccine development is generally very expensive, especially if you have to make several attempts which can happen. Its also a lengthy undertaking, in normal circumstances vaccine development takes years, and if a virus has been contained and found not be particularly virulent then there are other more cost effective ways of dealing with them.

There has to be political will to develop a vaccine as there is not much money in them so big Pharma companies wont develop them on there own they need government funding.

---

Along with that creating vaccines can be a moving target as viruses tend to mutate. One years flu vaccines may be ineffective the next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

Vaccine development is generally very expensive, especially if you have to make several attempts which can happen. Its also a lengthy undertaking, in normal circumstances vaccine development takes years, and if a virus has been contained and found not be particularly virulent then there are other more cost effective ways of dealing with them.

There has to be political will to develop a vaccine as there is not much money in them so big Pharma companies wont develop them on there own they need government funding.

---

In fact, what I want to express is that scientists have not been able to accurately judge the origin of SARS, H1N1, MERS, and Ebola, so they cannot formulate targeted epidemic prevention measures.

In addition, Robert Garry, a professor at the Tulane University School of Medicine in the United States, said that through genetic analysis, the virus did not originate in Wuhan. The virus may have been circulating in humans for many years. The virus may originate from bats, but another part of the virus seems to come from another animal, so this may be a recombinant virus.

https://weibo.com/tv/v/IARdKgJGP?fid...87842831990794
English interviews are available in the second half of the video.

Sure, it's likely to have circulated in some fashion for some time. To some extent, you have to ask when it really formed. A virus isn't a living thing, it's just DNA or RNA in a shell. It requires some cell to replicate. So, when did it form? Perhaps in Wuhan, perhaps millions of years ago, perhaps longer. It all depends on how you define it. Parts of the DNA/RNA come and go, mutate, and so forth. At some point, something happened and it changed from "no big deal to humans" into "a big deal to humans" (only changed two letters, which may be no more than the changes in the DNA/RNA of the virus). Is that a new virus? Well, no, it's the same old virus with a small, but significant, twist. We could say it is new, or we could say it is not. That's mostly just perspective. That twist probably happened just before the virus exploded onto the scene, but whether or not you could say that was a new virus or an old virus with a new twist...that's probably pretty hard to say.

I'm no biologist, but I thought that when a person had anti-bodies in their blood for a particular virus then making a cure/vaccination from that blood was fairly easy? Obviously I've been mistaken as many people now have the anti-bodies but no cure/vaccination. :confused:

Shaggy explains the Corona Virus

Yeah, that pretty well covers it.

Vaccines now being used to harvest biometric identities of everyone; Big Brother merges with Big Pharma
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-...veillance.html

Sweden sees microchip implant revolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl_gemn9a9E
ID, Wallet, Keys All In Your Hand: Sweden Moves Into The Future With Microchipping
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksw-arKvMPk

As the rest of Europe lives under lockdown, Sweden keeps calm and carries on
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...and-carries-on

(Coronavirus (Covid-19) No lock down here (Sweden) - BBC News - 30th March 2020)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfTrKm5syRU

What if the cure for the coronavirus were as simple as taking zinc?

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-03-...king-zinc.html

Quote:

---

What if the cure for the coronavirus were as simple as taking zinc?

---

What if the cure for people believing everything they read was to simply to throw there eyeballs into a black hole?

Before anyone starts looking to Sweden as an example of how to deal with the Virus, they are doing exactly what a number of other EU countries did before them and before the virus really got a hold and started killing lots of people.

They have no silver bullet, they for some unknown reason think that they will avoid what is happening all around them just by being Swedish.

There daily case are significantly increasing and there total cases have nearly trebled in the last 12 days from around 1300 to over 4000.

I'd give Natural News even less credence than I'd give Barry. Barry's a guy who goes to my local Wetherspoons pub. He generally arrives at about 10AM and stays all day. He wears sovereign rings, drinks Stella and believes that 9/11 was a red flag conspiracy. I don't give Barry much credence. I give Natural News even less.


It's worth understanding why Sweden hasn't had to have a mass lock down. It's because they took testing seriously right up front. They've been mass testing anyone who comes into the country and randomly testing the population at scale. They know where their cases are and are able to isolate them. As a result they're still in the containment phase while the US and UK have moved into the delay phase.

I have to say, that having previously we in the UK were getting our response roughly right, I'm starting to shift. I feel we called the lockdown about right but the fact that our levels of testing are still woefully low (we're still not testing people returning from abroad or NHS staff who are off with "symptoms") and NHS staff are still reporting that they haven't got the personal protection equipment they need. That's ridiculous.

Quote:

---

I'm no biologist, but I thought that when a person had anti-bodies in their blood for a particular virus then making a cure/vaccination from that blood was fairly easy? Obviously I've been mistaken as many people now have the anti-bodies but no cure/vaccination.

---

Ah so firstly Vaccines are not created from anti-bodies at all but from the virus itself. generally in some weakened form although there new techniques which dont use the virus at all.

What your talking about is convalescent plasma and has been used with some success over many years. I am obviously far from an expert but i would guess that its very difficult to mass produce this type of cure.

Quote:

---

It's worth understanding why Sweden hasn't had to have a mass lock down. It's because they took testing seriously right up front. They've been mass testing anyone who comes into the country and randomly testing the population at scale. They know where their cases are and are able to isolate them. As a result they're still in the containment phase while the US and UK have moved into the delay phase.

---

While that is true Sweden's cases are massively increasing and there is a lot of worry over there that they are not reacting to it.

Quote:

---

While that is true Sweden's cases are massively increasing and there is a lot of worry over there that they are not reacting to it.

---

Yeah, they're behind us on the curve. I didn't mean to imply that they weren't on it at all.

The country I'm feeling really sorry for is Russia. They've buried their heads firmly in the sand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I have to say, that having previously we in the UK were getting our response roughly right, I'm starting to shift. I feel we called the lockdown about right but the fact that our levels of testing are still woefully low (we're still not testing people returning from abroad or NHS staff who are off with "symptoms") and NHS staff are still reporting that they haven't got the personal protection equipment they need. That's ridiculous.

---

Our testing is rather limited (especially compared to Germany etc), but apparently we are being limited by global supply of the necessary ingredients... which is amplified by our limited funding of the NHS in recent years, which meant we didn't have as much existing stock as we ideally would at this time.

My gut reaction was to be concerned about the level of testing (especially of health staff), but as we haven't reached the peak of cases yet and staff levels are apparently OK at the moment, it might not be a bad idea to "let" the health staff be ill at this time, so that they have some degree of immunity when we get the peak.

Now testing of health staff is starting to ramp up, which should give more protection and available staff when it matters most.

Quote:

---

it might not be a bad idea to "let" the health staff be ill at this time, so that they have some degree of immunity when we get the peak.

---

Oof, that's a risky strategy. I've heard some experts say that we actually want some healthy people to get it and survive to start building up herd immunity but I think I'd rather go with just keeping our NHS staff as well as possible throughout. To me the testing (so we can get them back at work ASAP) and protective equipment are the keys to keeping the NHS ahead of the curve. The PPE, in particular, it really feels like should be on hand by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

What your talking about is convalescent plasma and has been used with some success over many years. I am obviously far from an expert but i would guess that its very difficult to mass produce this type of cure.

---

Some of that is done using pigs, but the pig has to be sufficiently susceptible that it will build up antibodies. I haven't heard that typical pigs are susceptible to this one, so sneezing on them doesn't help and it just annoys the pig.

No one mentioned the US is on lock down til May 1?

I knew they were gonna extend it as to spoon feed the population and not create more panic that we will be shutdown for months still to come. Its always easier to look at a quarantine for a short period with possible extensions vs right off the bat long period.

8 strains of the virus now supposedly being reported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

8 strains of the virus now supposedly being reported.

---

AHA!! We are barely a month into it, and already the strain is starting to show. Eight of them, no less.

I think your right, small period are easier to digest. I have room reservations for Santa Cruz for May 31 - Jun 3. I haven't canceled them, still hoping things will be opened back up in two months.

Testing, Testing, Testing. Almost everyone agrees on the importance of it. Why did the UK and US (and others) drag their feet so much? Was it just economics, hoping not to have to spend the money? Was it ignorance, thinking what happened in Wuhan couldn't happen in our country? Or was it political, putting our lives at risk for possible political gain. It seems like everyone knew but the government was in denial. Just doesn't really make sense to me.

In terms of testing in the UK/US/etc, from what I've heard it certainly sounds like our long-term strategy (as in last year and earlier) means that we don't have enough of the relevant ingredients to make as many tests as we'd like... and of course now the global demand is too high to get what we want.

We're in a dubious position that we can't change quickly, but according to experts we seem to be dealing with it reasonably well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I think I'd rather go with just keeping our NHS staff as well as possible throughout.

---

Given unlimited resources I would definitely agree, but the limits we find ourselves with means that the current approach is probably the best we can do this time (next year onwards will probably be better, as we build up NHS funding).

Quote:

---

The PPE, in particular, it really feels like should be on hand by now.

---

Apparently the quantity of stock is no longer an issue - it is just not reaching the right places yet, but the top medical people say it is being rapidly sorted out.


On top of that, apparently new suppliers of ventilators etc (including the Formula 1 teams) will be delivering them starting next week, and the quantities sound impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonLPrice

Trump is going to open everything back up in just over two weeks...we are all going to church Easter morning to celebrate. No worries..

---

That has changed now. Just when I was planning an Easter egg hunt for all the kids to assemble behind the church to celebrate the rise of our lord!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Here's an interesting map:

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/a...23467b48e9ecf6

An ESRI GIS map of the number of outbreaks by area. The US has made it to third place, at this point, and could take the gold, in the end.

---

your crystal gazing appears to have come true.

That was an easy prediction. I'm more proud of the one I made back in post #80. Called that one early. Now, had I also predicted the stock market collapse, I'd be jumping back in now and expecting a very tidy profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

That was an easy prediction. I'm more proud of the one I made back in post #80. Called that one early. Now, had I also predicted the stock market collapse, I'd be jumping back in now and expecting a very tidy profit.

---

Hope your right but there is way to much uncertainty in the air for me to be investing. It wouldn't surprise me if there was another 15 to 20% drop when this virus starts peaking and it becomes clear that June or July is the target for restarting the work force. The funny thing is I'm going to be getting a good sized chunk of change in a few days and have no idea what to do with it. Probably just stick it in a money market for a few months. I have no confidence in the market right now.

Well, I'd say that sticking it in a money market or bond fund would be fine, for now. I don't know that the market is at the bottom, but I'd say it's close, so buying in wouldn't be bad. I also don't think it will be marching upwards at any significant rate, so there's certainly no rush to get back in. Waiting a few months to see what happens will cost you nothing, and possibly gain you something.

I feel better now that the Carnac The Magnificent has spoken,

Attachment 175679

That's probably dating myself. :);):p

Code:

---

That's probably dating myself.

---

Is that anything like taking matters into your own hands :p

If you're single in total lockdown it's the only option available. I've set up a mirror on my dining table and every Wednesday evening I enjoy a candlelit dinner with myself. It's been going well and tonight I'm going to try and talk myself into staying over;).

Quote:

---

If you're single in total lockdown it's the only option available. I've set up a mirror on my dining table and every Wednesday evening I enjoy a candlelit dinner with myself. It's been going well and tonight I'm going to try and talk myself into staying over.

---

Its not the only option - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFgu8N5mWSE

Yeah, the earth moved for me last night....then I realized it was an earthquake. Idaho doesn't go for volume in that regard, but we do go for quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

If you're single in total lockdown it's the only option available. I've set up a mirror on my dining table and every Wednesday evening I enjoy a candlelit dinner with myself. It's been going well and tonight I'm going to try and talk myself into staying over;).

---

I believe it was Woody Allen that said "masturbation is having sex with someone you really love".

Well, the US has managed to more than double the number of cases that China reported, and we're still climbing like a rocket. Even Italy is leveling off, or at least trending in that direction. Not the US, though.

We really dropped the ball on this one. I wonder if anybody will ever be held accountable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Well, the US has managed to more than double the number of cases that China reported, and we're still climbing like a rocket. Even Italy is leveling off, or at least trending in that direction. Not the US, though.

We really dropped the ball on this one. I wonder if anybody will ever be held accountable?

---

If anybody tried the republicans would acquit him again. Speaking of which, Mitch McConnell says the impeachment was a big part of the delay in our reaction. It slipped his mind Trump was out campaigning during the start of the outbreak downplaying it and most of the delay was after that sham of a trail.

I'd say the federal government definitely dropped the ball and still is. On the state level, I think some have done their best to protect us, I'm satisfied with California's Governor's response. But then you have idiots like the Governor of Florida. The strange thing is we have successful models out there that can be used but for some reason they are being ignored. Maybe they wouldn't work because of our entrenched civil liberties beliefs. Look at the response when the president mentioned quarantining NY. Now I don't agree with China's way of government but in this one case their ability to control their people probably saved countless lives. One thing the US people wouldn't have any problem with is comprehensive testing. Let's hope this new 15 minute test is real and the 50,000 by the end of the week is true. We need a hell of a lot more than 50,00 but it's a start and could be a great tool for fighting the virus.

Edit: No way anyone will be held accountable. Just politicians pointing fingers at each other.

Quote:

---

Maybe they wouldn't work because of our entrenched civil liberties beliefs.

---

I think there may be some exceptionalism at play here (not by you personally). All of Europe shares your values on civil liberties but were willing to set them aside readily in the face of a crisis.

I do feel like large parts of the US is still failing to take this seriously and I think you risk an unnecessarily high level of deaths as a result. But the problem is purely political. I think it was mostly political point scoring that has delayed your response and continues to do so. Civil liberties will be among the reason given to score points but it's really a smoke screen but you should see it for what it is, a chance by one party or the other to win the political debate.

Here's an example that, I hope, shows both sides in an equally unedifying light: "Quarantining" New York. New York had already locked down when Trump suggested quarantining it so why did he see a need to suggest it? And, given that Trump wasn't even specifying what that meant and Cuomo had already taken the step of locking down, why did Cuomo feel the need to express such fears over it? My feeling is that both simply saw it as an opportunity to invade the other's side of the pitch. It gave the right an opportunity to say "we care about your welfare, those lazy Dems aren't doing enough and risking your health as a result" and it gave the left a chance to say "we care about your civil liberties, those evil Republicans are trying to erode the deeply held values of the United States".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I think there may be some exceptionalism at play here (not by you personally). All of Europe shares your values on civil liberties but were willing to set them aside readily in the face of a crisis.

I do feel like large parts of the US is still failing to take this seriously and I think you risk an unnecessarily high level of deaths as a result. But the problem is purely political. I think it was mostly political point scoring that has delayed your response and continues to do so. Civil liberties will be among the reason given to score points but it's really a smoke screen but you should see it for what it is, a chance by one party or the other to win the political debate.

Here's an example that, I hope, shows both sides in an equally unedifying light: "Quarantining" New York. New York had already locked down when Trump suggested quarantining it so why did he see a need to suggest it? And, given that Trump wasn't even specifying what that meant and Cuomo had already taken the step of locking down, why did Cuomo feel the need to express such fears over it? My feeling is that both simply saw it as an opportunity to invade the other's side of the pitch. It gave the right an opportunity to say "we care about your welfare, those lazy Dems aren't doing enough and risking your health as a result" and it gave the left a chance to say "we care about your civil liberties, those evil Republicans are trying to erode the deeply held values of the United States".

---

I have to disagree a little with how you framed your example. You ask "so why did he see a need to suggest it". Because he just says things like that off the top of his head without any real knowledge of what he is talking about. It wasn't a political position so to speak. It was just the moron being the moron. Ascribing any real purpose to it gives Trump way too much credit. I think Cuomo was just reacting to another moronic thing Trump was saying. Just like Trump's administration is constantly cleaning up his lies and misstatements. Their classic "what he really meant was...".

Quote:

---

...he just says things like that off the top of his head...

---

I wouldn't disagree with that but I don't feel it differs from what I was saying. Trump's always looking around for things to say that will make him look good, and if it's at the expense of opponents that's a bonus. Whether it was spontaneous or planned doesn't make a lot of difference IMO.

I feel, though, that Cuomo's response was thought through and deliberately designed to score political points. Calling it a "Federal declaration of war" is hyperbole. Especially given that, at that point, he didn't even know what Trump was actually suggesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I wouldn't disagree with that but I don't feel it differs from what I was saying. Trump's always looking around for things to say that will make him look good, and if it's at the expense of opponents that's a bonus. Whether it was spontaneous or planned doesn't make a lot of difference IMO.

I feel, though, that Cuomo's response was thought through and deliberately designed to score political points. Calling it a "Federal declaration of war" is hyperbole. Especially given that, at that point, he didn't even know what Trump was actually suggesting.

---

OK...I'll go with that.

There was an article I either read or heard that suggests that a countries response to the virus depends largely on whether they are optimistic about the future or optimistic about the past. Countries that feel that their best days are behind them, generally have been slow to respond and suffered worse (Italy and the US), while countries that feel their best days are ahead of them have taken more effective steps (South Korea, Taiwan).

Probably an oversimplification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I wouldn't disagree with that but I don't feel it differs from what I was saying. Trump's always looking around for things to say that will make him look good, and if it's at the expense of opponents that's a bonus. Whether it was spontaneous or planned doesn't make a lot of difference IMO.

I feel, though, that Cuomo's response was thought through and deliberately designed to score political points. Calling it a "Federal declaration of war" is hyperbole. Especially given that, at that point, he didn't even know what Trump was actually suggesting.

---

Except now, in Trump's head this is how it will come out: "So I told Cuomo that he needed to do a quarantine... And you know what? He did! " and then it'll be followed by some nonsense that somehow it was his idea.
The fact that that the quarantine was already in place won't matter.

-tg

I heard on TV, not reading it anywhere, the governor of Florida and a real Trump sycophant, is finally locking down the state. He said when he heard how serious Trump was now he acted. A couple of exceptions; gun stores and religious events. Now there is a Republican you can be proud of :rolleyes: