Joe T.
Member
man, any word on Chris Christie? Doesn't seem good
Looks like he wasn't hit too hard:
man, any word on Chris Christie? Doesn't seem good
A extremely strict lockdown can total eradicate the virus, it is just people don't want to do itI don't think anyone thinks lockdowns can eradicate the virus. It's more about making things more manageable for the health service and reducing the number of indirect deaths as result of extra Covid admissions. The only real solution to solving this problem is a viable vaccine.
A thoughly researched book breaking down the corruption within the pharmacuetical industry going back decades with research conducted by nobel laureates, virologists and epidemiologists = conspiracy theory. Quality Lionel ,look forward to your future input.
A extremely strict lockdown can total eradicate the virus, it is just people don't want to do it
Within China, the CCP has pretended to believe its own lies only at its own convenience, reserving the right to use COVID-19 as a pretext for unrelated authoritarian whims—demolishing retirement homes, detaining dissidents and reporters, expanding mass surveillance, canceling Hong Kong’s Tiananmen Square vigil and postponing its elections for one year. In Xinjiang, where over 1 million Uighurs are imprisoned, lockdowns have gone on since January and have involved widespread hunger, forced medication, acidic disinfectant sprays, shackled residents, screams of protest from balconies, crowded “quarantine” cells, and outright disappearances.
The most benign possible explanation for the CCP’s campaign for global lockdowns is that the party aggressively promoted the same lie internationally as domestically—that lockdowns worked. For party members, when Wuhan locked down it likely went without saying that the lockdown would “eliminate” coronavirus; if Xi willed it to be true, then it must be so. This is the totalitarian pathology that George Orwell called “double-think.” But the fact that authoritarian regimes always lie does not give them a right to spread deadly lies to the rest of the world, especially by clandestine means.
And then there’s the possibility that by shutting down the world, Xi Jinping, who vaulted through the ranks of the party, quotes ancient Chinese scholars, has mastered debts and derivatives, studies complexity science, and envisions a socialist future with China at its center, knew exactly what he was doing.
In order for such a lockdown to exist, there need to be people policing, and the people policing will still have and spread the virus. Furthermore, we already know COVID-19 lives in animals, so even if you found an automated way to patrol, animals would still be waiting with the virus when people emerged. Plus there are immuno-compromised people who can hang on to a sickness for way longer than "normal" people do. The lockdown would have to be months.A extremely strict lockdown can total eradicate the virus, it is just people don't want to do it
You don't need to stop police from spreading the virus. You just need to ensure more people are recovering from the virus than are becoming newly infected, i.e that the reproductive rate is below 1. New Zealand claims to have eradicated community transmission of the virus, so it will be interesting to see how long that lasts.In order for such a lockdown to exist, there need to be people policing, and the people policing will still have and spread the virus.
For now. Are they going to be a hermit nation? Because otherwise the disease returns. And because it is over very very mild, it’s return can be subtle. So do you lockdown again every time the virus pops up? Because it isn’t going away. Likely ever. We will just get better at dealing with it.You don't need to stop police from spreading the virus. You just need to ensure more people are recovering from the virus than are becoming newly infected, i.e that the reproductive rate is below 1. New Zealand claims to have eradicated community transmission of the virus, so it will be interesting to see how long that lasts.
True. Every approach has its downsides. (You would need perfect quarantining of every new arrival) But the premise of the question was whether a lockdown could ever eliminate a virus in a given region.For now. Are they going to be a hermit nation? Because otherwise the disease returns. And because it is over very very mild, it’s return can be subtle. So do you lockdown again every time the virus pops up? Because it isn’t going away. Likely ever. We will just get better at dealing with it.
Find out for yourself in the link provided Lionel i ain't your P.A.I'll bite: who are the nobel laureates?
I guess that’s true. But I would think it obvious. Of course if you starve the virus of hosts, the virus will go away. The question is always whether it’s possible to actually do that and whether the price is worth paying.True. Every approach has its downsides. (You would need perfect quarantining of every new arrival) But the premise of the question was whether a lockdown could ever eliminate a virus in a given region.
There's a difference between claiming lockdowns are too costly, or are not a sustainable long term-solution, and claiming they don't work at all in keeping the reproductive rate of the virus below 1.
A extremely strict lockdown can total eradicate the virus, it is just people don't want to do it
You don't need to stop police from spreading the virus. You just need to ensure more people are recovering from the virus than are becoming newly infected, i.e that the reproductive rate is below 1. New Zealand claims to have eradicated community transmission of the virus, so it will be interesting to see how long that lasts.
Even if you fully starve out the virus they'll still lie dormant in certain people and come out once everything opens up, not to mention animals will still spread it to humans within days of reopening. Lockdowns are a dead end. End of story.I guess that’s true. But I would think it obvious. Of course if you starve the virus of hosts, the virus will go away. The question is always whether it’s possible to actually do that and whether the price is worth paying.
My feelings are that the price is clearly too high. I’m a huge proponent of mitigation along with essentially allowing anyone who is under 50 and healthy to be exposed naturally, unless they live with an at risk person.
Edited
He said one strict lockdown would "total eradicate" the virus. Have an R value below one does not do that.You don't need to stop police from spreading the virus. You just need to ensure more people are recovering from the virus than are becoming newly infected, i.e that the reproductive rate is below 1. New Zealand claims to have eradicated community transmission of the virus, so it will be interesting to see how long that lasts.
Find out for yourself in the link provided Lionel i ain't your P.A.
Ignorance is bliss Richtea.Spare me. Say their names. And it's Mr. Richie for you.
Well, they managed 102 days without any reported community transmission. The problem is of course you need a 100% perfect quarantine to stop the virus from coming back. The reproductive rate is an estimate, however when it is above 1, daily hospitalisations and deaths will be continuously doubling. And even if you distrust the classification of coronavirus deaths, you can compare the case numbers to the number of excess deaths.I'm not sure I believe New Zealand, considering they made this claim a long time ago and then had to do more lockdowns. In any case, the reproductive rate is an estimate, and it is based on those bullshit tests anyway (remember: the case counts are fake).
That's true. We will have to live with the virus. But that still leaves open the question of whether it is possible to keep the reproductive rate below 1 with social distancing and test and trace alone. The Sweden example is interesting precisely because they may have managed to do this.Even if it were true, New Zealand is a tiny island nation in the middle of nowhere, whatever they do is not feasible for any country in Europe or North America. People, aided by the media, were far too quick to declare victory over the virus, usually as a way to shit on Trump ("Europe has 'beaten' back the virus, while those dumbass Americans are still struggling") and endlessly promote the lockdown mania ("Sweden has failed mightily"). Back then I said it was way too early to say those things an that's been proven correct.
If the R value is below 1 in a given region, it means that the number of new cases per day will be continually decreasing. Well, with a continual decrease eventually you will hit 0 new cases per day. And then once all the existing cases have recovered, you will have eradicated the virus from that region.He said one strict lockdown would "total eradicate" the virus. Have an R value below one does not do that.
Texas right now has an R value below one. Would you define Texas as having eradicated it?
WHICH is the problem... people are relaxing too quickly. Constant reopening and closing is not doing anyone any favor. These stupid ningen would pretend things are normal like a convenient lie, but we clear know it is not. I for one is completely fine with no going out to eat, go to movie theater or travel ever again. Ningen in us are not used to suffering, which is a major issue. They call it freedom, i call it selfish.Well, they managed 102 days without any reported community transmission. The problem is of course you need a 100% perfect quarantine to stop the virus from coming back. The reproductive rate is an estimate, however when it is above 1, daily hospitalisations and deaths will be continuously doubling. And even if you distrust the classification of coronavirus deaths, you can compare the case numbers to the number of excess deaths.
That's true. We will have to live with the virus. But that still leaves open the question of whether it is possible to keep the reproductive rate below 1 with social distancing and test and trace alone. The Sweden example is interesting precisely because they may have managed to do this.
If the R value is below 1 in a given region, it means that the number of new cases per day will be continually decreasing. Well, with a continual decrease eventually you will hit 0 new cases per day. And then once all the existing cases have recovered, you will have eradicated the virus from that region.
The problem is that the restrictions necessary to do this are horrendously costly, so in fact governments try to keep the R value at or around 1, to give the populace as much freedom as they can, without the virus growing out of control. For example Texas is estimated to be at 0.97 at the moment! If the R value was to drop again, they wouldn't leave current restrictions in place, but rather relax them further (eg. opening up more indoor dining capacity). That would push R up again.
New Zealand's strategy is unique, since they decided to push R down as much possible in the belief that if they can eliminate the virus, they can stop it from coming back. That obviously wouldn't work for Texas, since it isn't an island. On the other hand, if (which is impossible) every single county in the world was to lockdown at the same time, and keep R below 1 for enough time, the virus could be eradicated indefinitely – contingent on there not being "zoonotic reservoir" in the animal kingdom, or other sources like contaminated frozen food.
There is no world in which this isn't either something we live with as it spreads its way through society or we do the revolving lockdown dance. The disease is here to stay. The world has eradicated 2 contagious disease, and neither of them are anywhere near as contagious as this. This is another strain of the flu now. Eventually enough people will have gotten it and its spread will wax and wane like all other contagious respiratory illnesses. Right now we are attempt to find the level at which community spread will naturally level off. There is some hope that in certain places that has already taken place.WHICH is the problem... people are relaxing too quickly. Constant reopening and closing is not doing anyone any favor.
It feels like you are arguing with me without actually disagreeing with me. I understand perfectly well what an R value below one is. But Texas' R value has been below 1 for more than 6 weeks. It's still nearly a year off from cases reaching zero with that R value, even assuming no external pressure to push the R value back up. Again, he said the right lockdown would "total eradicate". If said lockdown is 1+ years then I agree, it would totally eradicate the virus, as nearly all people would be dead as most aren't self-sufficient and have that supply of food.If the R value is below 1 in a given region, it means that the number of new cases per day will be continually decreasing. Well, with a continual decrease eventually you will hit 0 new cases per day. And then once all the existing cases have recovered, you will have eradicated the virus from that region.
The problem is that the restrictions necessary to do this are horrendously costly, so in fact governments try to keep the R value at or around 1, to give the populace as much freedom as they can, without the virus growing out of control. For example Texas is estimated to be at 0.97 at the moment! If the R value was to drop again, they wouldn't leave current restrictions in place, but rather relax them further (eg. opening up more indoor dining capacity). That would push R up again.
New Zealand's strategy is unique, since they decided to push R down as much possible in the belief that if they can eliminate the virus, they can stop it from coming back. That obviously wouldn't work for Texas, since it isn't an island. On the other hand, if (which is impossible) every single county in the world was to lockdown at the same time, and keep R below 1 for enough time, the virus could be eradicated indefinitely – contingent on there not being "zoonotic reservoir" in the animal kingdom, or other sources like contaminated frozen food.
To me it is like a Western nation problem. In country like in Japan and South Korea are doing it much better. They do small lockalize lockdown if needed and they have no issue with doing announcment on the news as to where the possible cluster are.There is no world in which this isn't either something we live with as it spreads its way through society or we do the revolving lockdown dance. The disease is here to stay. The world has eradicated 2 contagious disease, and neither of them are anywhere near as contagious as this. This is another strain of the flu now. Eventually enough people will have gotten it and its spread will wax and wane like all other contagious respiratory illnesses. Right now we are attempt to find the level at which community spread will naturally level off. There is some hope that in certain places that has already taken place.
WHICH is the problem... people are relaxing too quickly. Constant reopening and closing is not doing anyone any favor. These stupid ningen would pretend things are normal like a convenient lie, but we clear know it is not. I for one is completely fine with no going out to eat, go to movie theater or travel ever again. Ningen in us are not used to suffering, which is a major issue. They call it freedom, i call it selfish.
For now. We shall see if those places are satisfied with that kind of thing forever.To me it is like a Western nation problem. In country like in Japan and South Korea are doing it much better. They do small lockalize lockdown if needed and they have no issue with doing announcment on the news as to where the possible cluster are.
Why would it take a year? And second of all, WHERE exactly are peopel gettign the virus from? People seems to refuse to answer that questionIt feels like you are arguing with me without actually disagreeing with me. I understand perfectly well what an R value below one is. But Texas' R value has been below 1 for more than 6 weeks. It's still nearly a year off from cases reaching zero with that R value, even assuming no external pressure to push the R value back up. Again, he said the right lockdown would "total eradicate". If said lockdown is 1+ years then I agree, it would totally eradicate the virus, as nearly all people would be dead as most aren't self-sufficient and have that supply of food.
I am perfectly fine with that for years to come. Let face it , for real, peopel in USA are NOT willing to suffer to get this under control. Like i said, it is a damn convenient lie to even consider things are normal.This virus is never, ever going away, and unless you are fine with NEVER going out to eat, NEVER traveling, or NEVER going to a movie theater, ever again, you need to change your mode of thinking.
True, but it doesn't hurt they have a mask culure there where they willing to wear mask for everyone's good. They have the mentality of for the good of the country and everyone else. They also have excellent contract trace program where we are not allow to do.For now. We shall see if those places are satisfied with that kind of thing forever.
I am perfectly fine with that for years to come. Let face it , for real, peopel in USA are NOT willing to suffer to get this under control. Like i said, it is a damn convenient lie to even consider things are normal.
To me it is like a Western nation problem. In country like in Japan and South Korea are doing it much better. They do small lockalize lockdown if needed and they have no issue with doing announcment on the news as to where the possible cluster are.
I'm going to beat everyone over the head with this because the media definitely isn't: the method behind the testing (and reporting) is the reason for their perceived "success."
Success in this context is applying and reporting the tests in reasonable fashion. Want to spook your residents with spiking cases and bring down another lock down? Just push everyone to get tested, increase the number of PCR cycles and you'll have exactly what you want, guaranteed.
"Mass testing is key," but look up South Korea's tests per day and find how many cycles they use for their PCR tests, if you can, then compare it to the countries you think are failing. New Zealand is another country that "succeeded" except their tests per day are very low. China wasn't even counting asymptomatic cases, assuming you trust anything out of there, now imagine how that would change the reporting and associated fear that comes with it around the world.
Correlation is indeed causation here. Focus on the tests.
I have to disagree, annoucing it on media help prevent spread by having people avoid the hotzone.
Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California-Riverside, said she believes any test with a cycle threshold over 35 is too sensitive. "I'm shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive," she said.
And according to Mandavilli, a review conducted by the New York Times of three sets of coronavirus testing data from Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York found that up to 90% of patients in those data sets who tested positive for the coronavirus had very low viral loads.
Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said of the Times review's results, "I'm really shocked that it could be that high—the proportion of people with high [cycle threshold] value results." He added, "Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing."
There's no reason to expect the outcomes to remain the same when the circumstances have changed a great deal since the start of the year. I'd like to hope the level of fear has come down somewhat even for the poor souls that are exclusively getting their information from the mainstream sources because we know for a fact treatments are being used now that weren't in March/April and, at the very least, they're shortening hospital stays. There was a rush to throw every serious case on ventilators early on, questionably skipping over oxygen masks altogether in some cases, and that doesn't seem to be the case at all right now.
It's inexcusable to me that the news media and elected leaders are still trusted by the general public when they're both working so hard to obscure the full picture. Just yesterday the municipal government here and the news media were directly contradicting each other on one of the most important factors behind the overwhelming majority of Canada's deaths, that long term care facilities/old age homes are "now under control." You can trust the public health officials in government, you can trust the news media or the doctors they invite on air, but you can't trust them all when they're in direct opposition to each other.
Anyone still asking "Why don't people trust the experts?" is either very out of touch or lucky enough to live in a corner of the world where this piss poor reporting isn't tolerated and normalized.
I just had an extended argument with a family member who has the worst case of COVID-itis I've seen in person.
Going on and on about how his state had "record high numbers of hospitalizations". Said record high? 7% of the state's capacity for hospital beds.
Literally pulled out the "WE MUST LOCKDOWN EVERYTHING NOW UNTIL VACCINE!" card.
Now I'm depressed.
The quarantine of New Zealand has been so effective it just might lead to the extinction of many flu strains in the country. I hope one lesson learnt from all this is the usefulness of masks and staying home when sick. Like how people in East Asia already act.
Why spread around the flu and cold intentionally? Take the proper precautions and it will lead to less sick days, economic losses, and deaths.
If you're sick stay home. If you're sick wear a mask if you must go out. I'm fine with that, but no more.
In Koreaathey were recently complaining that old men there, locals, don't wear masks and distance enough. Also now some Koreans are protesting outdoors against the restrictions because....drumroll they feel their freedom is being taken away- they are fed up.For now. We shall see if those places are satisfied with that kind of thing forever.
Ignorance is bliss Richtea.
The 75% is the qualitative drop based on all responses(closing business, mask mandates, etc) over two months after Arizona made the changes.CDC claims Arizona cases dropped by 75% after Arizona's mask mandate
CDC Report said:further declined by approximately 75% during July 13–August 7
Read it for yourself...make your own judgement about the contents...to ask about 1 person or persons as if that would invalidate the rest of the documented evidence going back decades (especially when not checking the evidence for yourself) is avoidance at best. If your not going to read it i've not got much to say to you on the subject.Name the nobel laureates you alluded to, and I don't mean just people getting quoted in broad strokes. I want you to name one single nobel laureate that directly support the theory that "the Medical Industry continually invents epidemics".
Read it for yourself...make your own judgement about the contents...to ask about 1 person or persons as if that would invalidate the rest of the documented evidence going back decades (especially when not checking the evidence for yourself) is avoidance at best. If your not going to read it i've not got much to say to you on the subject.