Board 8 > Coronavirus Topic 9

(+) Yeah! (+)

neonreaper posted...

it was 90 percent of people for two weeks but to be honest I dont think it would have been the end of coronavirus.

If we actually told everyone go get two weeks of supplies, then set a 2 week period of everyone stay home, closed everything but absolutely essential services, we'd have gotten the virus down to negligible levels.

And then it would come back and people would be so outraged.

---

Not sure that would be enough.

Read a report today where a group of 60+ people went offshore for 30+ days. They all quarantined for 14 days beforehand and tested negative. They came back because people started showing COVID symptoms. 59 people tested positive. Other results they are waiting on but no negatives yet.

I'll try find it again as I can't remember the source (i.e. Is it credible). Was off a Facebook link so possibly not

neonreaper posted...

And then it would come back and people would be so outraged.

I mean, the lockdown is supposed to buy you time for testing and contact tracing services to be built up.

It doesn't go away, but it gives you the ability to actually manage the spread.

As well as do useful things like tell people to wear masks and such.

Basically all the things we never did.

---

Yeah and that's exactly what I was saying back in March. That the lockdown would be useless because we weren't doing anything other than delaying the inevitable. And hey, whaddya know, that's exactly what happened.

---

Yeah definitely.

It definitely is trending this exact same way the world over. There's nowhere on Earth right now where this virus is any worse than all the other countries put together almost. Nope, there's not almost entire continents that have this under control.
---

None of this is inevitable though.

It is only inevitable if you are insistent on taking half-measures the entire way through.

---

red13n posted...

None of this is inevitable though.

It is only inevitable if you are insistent on taking half-measures the entire way through.

It is, in fact, inevitable that an organization as big, as bureaucratic, and as generally ineffective, as the US government (at all levels) would not do anything useful with the time granted by a two-week shutdown.

The lockdown "not being severe enough" has nothing to do with the fact that contact tracing wasn't ready, or that the CDC and WHO and surgeon general were all still saying "masks don't work" or whatever else.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Yeah and that's exactly what I was saying back in March. That the lockdown would be useless because we weren't doing anything other than delaying the inevitable. And hey, whaddya know, that's exactly what happened.

I mean if you're just gonna not bother with precautions afterwards, then yes a shutdown is pointless. I don't think anyone's going to argue with you there.

---

Nope, there's not almost entire continents that have this under control.

How many of the places who "have it under control" are open to international travel without quarantine?

---

SmartMuffin posted...

How many of the places who "have it under control" are open to international travel without quarantine?

I'll be waiting for a relevant argument if you would like to make one.
---

I'll be waiting for a relevant argument if you would like to make one.

It's not "under control" if it requires a near-total shutdown of a huge portion of your economy literally indefinitely.

It is not sustainable for New Zealand to have approximately zero international tourism.

---

Uhhh smuffin, I think most people would say that "not being open to international travel without quarantine" is part of "having it under control"

International travel actually hasn't been that widespread until more recent history.

It is actually very much sustainable.

But no one is asking it to be sustainable, they are asking for it until other countries get their shit together.

---

colliding posted...

Uhhh smuffin, I think most people would say that "not being open to international travel without quarantine" is part of "having it under control"

No, it's having it under control temporarily and at great cost while increasing the risk of having it not be under control as soon as you lift the restriction and avoid the cost.

---

red13n posted...

International travel actually hasn't been that widespread until more recent history.

It is actually very much sustainable.

And there it is. A demand we revert to 19th century standards of living. How did I know this would happen sooner rather than later?

---

20th century, actually.

---

It's fine. In a few months they'll lift the travel restrictions to non-US countries and all the tourists will actually talk about how nice it is that there are no Americans here.

SmartMuffin posted...

It's not "under control" if it requires a near-total shutdown of a huge portion of your economy literally indefinitely.

It is not sustainable for New Zealand to have approximately zero international tourism.

Quite frankly, if people like you would stop denying this is a serious issue and do what the hell you're supposed to do like New Zealand, they wouldn't have to close international travel for very long.
---

v_charon posted...

Quite frankly, if people like you would stop denying this is a serious issue and do what the hell you're supposed to do like New Zealand, they wouldn't have to close international travel for very long.

His freedoms are more important than everything else. Who cares about the cost as long as he can go to his bars and his fiance can stop being sad

---

https://www.dailywire.com/news/florida-labs-found-significantly-inflating-positive-covid-testing-rate

Lol but why

v_charon posted...

Quite frankly, if people like you would stop denying this is a serious issue and do what the hell you're supposed to do like New Zealand, they wouldn't have to close international travel for very long.

Please stop comparing to island nations or places with strict borders / natural borders. It makes you less believable.

---

colliding posted...

It's fine. In a few months they'll lift the travel restrictions to non-US countries and all the tourists will actually talk about how nice it is that there are no Americans here.

Then they'll get reinfected. If you think the entire landmass of Europe is going to "eradicate" this disease prior to reaching herd immunity you're literally insane.

My suspicion is that we're nearly at herd immunity though. And by "we" I mean all the places that "didn't get it under control." Not New Zealand though. They're going to have to remain terrified of this thing for years.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Please stop comparing to island nations or places with strict borders / natural borders. It makes you less believable.

Europe's state is infinitely better than the US's.

Also I didn't bring up New Zealand, SMuffin did. This is why I don't like you, for the record.
---

Europe's state is infinitely better than the US's.

There are six European countries with higher deaths per million than the US.

If you were to take out New York and New Jersey, there'd be a whole lot more.

---

And they aren't tiny, insignificant ones either...



---

v_charon posted...

Quite frankly, if people like you would stop denying this is a serious issue and do what the hell you're supposed to do like New Zealand, they wouldn't have to close international travel for very long.

I will come to the defense of Smuffin here in that America's predicament really should NOT be placed at its people. It's the leadership or lack thereof. It's the inability to set up systems of contact tracing. It's mixed messaging about mask wearing. It's the fact that for two months you couldn't get tested unless you were basically facing hospitalization anyway. That despite all of this there's still no meaningful reform to health care in this country.

Anti-maskers and people who want to open things up are among those who have seen that America basically failed the last few months. And they're absolutely right. Rather than seek a perpetual shut down to their way of life, they prefer to suck it up and live with the deaths, thinking them to be an acceptable loss. Personally, I don't blame them for feeling this way. As someone who's already lost their grandparents and parents I sometimes think the same way.

Personal attacks on people not wearing masks is a displacement of anger that should be reserved for the government. Not just Trump, but Fauci, the Dems for not pushing MFA, and the CDC too honestly.

Ok Trump.
---

colliding posted...

Personal attacks on people not wearing masks is a displacement of anger that should be reserved for the government.

If you want to feel that way, that's fine. That's not how I operate though. Every person is accountable is my philosophy. Change starts on the individual level; real change that's going to be lasting. People have to want the world to be a better place, not have the government tell them that's the right way. It goes that way for this virus, global warming, pollution, racism, etc. Anything really. If people on the individual levels aren't changing for the better, I hold them accountable and part of the problem.
---

I haven't caught COVID and therefore haven't infected a single other person with it. So what are you "holding me accountable" for exactly? I am personally responsible for exactly zero COVID deaths, COVID hospitalizations, and COVID cases.

---

v_charon posted...

If you want to feel that way, that's fine. That's not how I operate though. Every person is accountable is my philosophy. Change starts on the individual level; real change that's going to be lasting. People have to want the world to be a better place, not have the government tell them that's the right way. It goes that way for this virus, global warming, pollution, racism, etc. Anything really. If people on the individual levels aren't changing for the better, I hold them accountable and part of the problem.

Fair enough. I think about it like I do climate change/global warming. Sure, individual people shouldn't litter, blah blah blah. But individuals are not the cause of climate change. And just because one person or even a sizable number of people start to turn off their lights and recycle, that isn't going to solve the problem. It has to come from the top down.

If you can't see how that's a hollow argument then there's no use in bothering. It's like saying that because I've never killed anyone by driving intoxicated that makes it okay to do it since nothing bad has happened yet. I can't grasp how people like you think at all.
---

You are implying there is thinking going on. That is where the problem begins.

---

colliding posted...

Fair enough. I think about it like I do climate change/global warming. Sure, individual people shouldn't litter, blah blah blah. But individuals are not the cause of climate change. And just because one person or even a sizable number of people start to turn off their lights and recycle, that isn't going to solve the problem. It has to come from the top down.

It's still always up to society to start believing it's actually right and not having to be told it is. Unfortunately, in this country especially, if you tell people to do something for the greater good they immediately do the exact opposite so they can exercise their "freedom" while lambasting an oppressive government. I'd rather the top just make the right decisions, tell people what to do, and have those people do the right thing. But logically it isn't very feasible, especially here in 'murica.
---

colliding posted...

Fair enough. I think about it like I do climate change/global warming. Sure, individual people shouldn't litter, blah blah blah. But individuals are not the cause of climate change. And just because one person or even a sizable number of people start to turn off their lights and recycle, that isn't going to solve the problem. It has to come from the top down.

Wrong btw. It is people threatening to not buy their products that get companies to change. Companies just care about money. Threaten money they shrug and change behavior to keep money.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

And they aren't tiny, insignificant ones either...

friendly reminder that sweden mostly used the "GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" tactic that you're such a huge fan of. how did that work out for them?

---

v_charon posted...

Europe's state is infinitely better than the US's.

Also I didn't bring up New Zealand, SMuffin did. This is why I don't like you, for the record.

Well, gee willikers! Sorry that you don't like someone because they ask you to hold yourself to higher standards than muffin! Lol

---

It was a retort to a point he was making, not me making a comparison of my own as you implied.
---

Okee dokee, vcharon!

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-07/uops-prf071320.php

I just applied for a vaccine trial also. Cool.

---

There has been some studies that say this virus may have been around as far as last year even early in the year, but it all seems rather speculative.

---

friendly reminder that sweden mostly used the "GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" tactic that you're such a huge fan of. how did that work out for them?

Pretty well! They did better than a few of countries that had strict lockdowns. How do you explain that exactly if lockdowns are a magic panacea which definitely work?

---

Well, Sweden's goal was to come out ahead in the long run, I believe. That said, their economy took just as much a hit as many lockdown countries did also.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Well, Sweden's goal was to come out ahead in the long run, I believe. That said, their economy took just as much a hit as many lockdown countries did also.

Not really. It'll also look even better long-term as they're definitely closer to herd immunity than anyone else is.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Not really. It'll also look even better long-term as they're definitely closer to herd immunity than anyone else is.

Their gdp predictions are just as low if not lower than surrounding lockdown countries.

---

Wear a damn mask

---

Mask it or casket

---

Tange says Wear Your Damn Mask

---