Trump Vs Trudeau on Coronavirus

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Approaching 20:1 cases between the countries and 20 times more deaths too. 

New York State and California are starting to look like Italy. 

Trump is tweeting premature hope about treatment before trials are even done. 

The only treatment is social distancing. 

 

Social distancing just slows it down, it doesn't make it go away.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Social distancing just slows it down, it doesn't make it go away.

That's what's needed. 

Flattening the curve. 

There is not cure for a virus, just medications to help manage symptoms. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Boges

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

That's what's needed. 

Flattening the curve. 

Flattening the curve doesn't solve the problem, it simply delays the inevitable and buys more time for the virus to mutate. The hope is not that premature, they've known this anti-malarial drug has been effective on coronavirus since 2005. In one of the trails on Covid-19, literally everyone given the drug recovered with zero deaths.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Flattening the curve doesn't solve the problem. It's not premature hope, they've known this anti-malarial drug has been on coronavirus since 2005.

Then why do all the experts have to walk back the BS Trump spouts. 

Trials would still need to happen. And manufacturing. 

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, Boges said:

Trials would still need to happen. And manufacturing. 

Indeed, but it's very promising. Pretending like it isn't just because Trump says it is, is Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Indeed, but it's very promising. Pretending like it isn't just because Trump says it is, is Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Fine. A treatment would work for future waves. It's not going to help open the economy in the short term. 

Only people staying at home and slowing the outbreak will do that. 

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

Fine. A treatment would work for future waves. It's not going to help open the economy in the short term. 

Only people staying at home and slowing the outbreak will do that. 

People staying home and slowing the outbreak is what is killing the economy. Social distancing is not good for the economy, quite the opposite.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

People staying home and slowing the outbreak is what is killing the economy. Social distancing is not good for the economy, quite the opposite.

Yes it's awful for the economy. 

But if we don't, we get what we're seeing in Europe where the cases are overwhelming Health Care systems and we are seeing deaths in otherwise healthy people. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Boges

[Boges]

If we slow the outbreak now, maybe we can start going back to some level of normalcy in the next few weeks. 

[Yzermandius19]

34 minutes ago, Boges said:

Yes it's awful for the economy. 

But if we don't, we get what we're seeing in Europe where the cases are overwhelming Health Care systems and we are seeing deaths in otherwise healthy people. 

That's going to happen anyway, so it's simply kicking the can down the road, and crashing the economy at the same time.

Edited March 21, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Shady]

42 minutes ago, Boges said:

Fine. A treatment would work for future waves. It's not going to help open the economy in the short term. 

Only people staying at home and slowing the outbreak will do that. 

Yes it would.  It’s being used in Europe right now and select patients in the United States with promising results.  But it won’t be widely distributed until a bit more data is achieved.  It may also act as a prophylactic to even getting the virus.  As far as an actual vaccine, that’s gonna take at least 6 months.

[Shady]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

That's going to happen anyway, so it's simply kicking the can down the road, and crashing the economy at the same time.

No it’s not.  Pandemics have a curve to them, whether there’s a vaccine or not.  The faster you flatten the curve, the less cases there are, and things get back to normal, while you still treat people that come down with the virus once in a while.

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, Shady said:

No it’s not.  Pandemics have a curve to them, whether there’s a vaccine or not.  The faster you flatten the curve, the less cases there are, and things get back to normal, while you still treat people that come down with the virus once in a while.

This time might be different. They're suggesting that the immunity to this virus does not last long after you've had it, which means people could become repeatedly infected.

[Yzermandius19]

22 hours ago, Shady said:

No it’s not.  Pandemics have a curve to them, whether there’s a vaccine or not.  The faster you flatten the curve, the less cases there are, and things get back to normal, while you still treat people that come down with the virus once in a while.

Wrong, the amount of infections is the same, you simply spaced them out more, and hopefully the medical capacity won't be overrun, but if it is overrun anyway, all you did was destroy the economy and the virus will stick around for longer, with more viral generations also increasing the chances of mutation.

Clearly you do not understand what "flattening the curve" is at all.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

This time might be different. They're suggesting that the immunity to this virus does not last long after you've had it, which means people could become repeatedly infected.

The evidence of reinfection has not shown up yet. The problem is, slowing down the rate people get infected by the virus keeps herd immunity low, and it's herd immunity that will kill the virus, the social distancing should only be used to protect particularily at risk populations.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Wrong, the amount of cases is the same, you simply spaced them out more.

The theory is that in spacing them out you put a lesser load on the health care services and supplies.  How that will affect the final numbers is probably something for a statistician to figure out.  There's no reason why the number should be the same. It would depend on how the curve was being flattened, how much it was being flattened, and how much effect an unburdened health care sysyem had on those who were infected.

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The theory is that in spacing them out you put a lesser load on the health care services and supplies.  How that will affect the final numbers is probably something for a statistician to figure out.  There's no reason why the number should be the same. It would depend on how the curve was being flattened, how much it was being flattened, and how much effect an unburdened health care sysyem had on those who were infected.

Yes and that theory is based on faith that flattening the curve will keep the system from being overrun, but if that doesn't happen, and the medical capacity line is far lower than social distancing and shutting down the economy can flatten the curve, then the attempt to flatten the curve just made everything worse and increases the amount of time the system will be overwhelmed for. Most people around here don't seem to grasp the concept at all, and are just really sure they think they do.

Also you can't shut everything down forever, and once you open things back up there will be nothing to stop the infection from spreading at a faster rate once that happens, so you are still going to get a spike after you are forced to finish stalling, all that happened was the inevitable was delayed and you wrecked the economy on top of it. Not great, Bob.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Yes and that theory is based on faith that flattening the curve will keep the system from being overrun, but if that doesn't happen, and the medical capacity line is far lower than social distancing can flatten the curve, then flattening the curve just made everything worse and increases the amount of time the system will be overwhelmed for. Most people around here don't seem to grasp the concept at all, and are just really sure they think they do.

It's not based on faith at all.  It's based on expert opinion. Granted, there are no absolutes at the moment, but I'll go with the experts until there are.

If the medical capacity line is far lower than social distancing can flatten the curve, then things will be really bad, but not as bad as if the effort were not made in the first place.

Unless you are of the "band aid removal" view on this?  Get all the dead out of the way as quickly as possible and let the others get on with their lives.

[Shady]

26 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Wrong, the amount of infections is the same, you simply spaced them out more, and hopefully the medical capacity won't be overrun, but if it is overrun anyway, all you did was destroy the economy and the virus will stick around for longer, with more viral generations also increasing the chances of mutation.

Clearly you do not understand what "flattening the curve" is at all.

No you’re wrong.  Just take a look at H1N1 or SARS for example.  The amount of infection is absolutely not the same.  You’re the one that doesn’t seem to understand.  

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's not based on faith at all.  It's based on expert opinion. Granted, there are no absolutes at the moment, but I'll go with the experts until there are.

If the medical capacity line is far lower than social distancing can flatten the curve, then things will be really bad, but not as bad as if the effort were not made in the first place.

Unless you are of the "band aid removal" view on this?  Get all the dead out of the way as quickly as possible and let the others get on with their lives.

None of the experts are making the claims you are about flattening the curve. If the medical capacity line is far lower than social distancing can flatten the curve, then things will bad for longer, not shorter. Many experts say that after things are no longer totally shut down there will be a surge in cases due to a lack of herd immunity that will be nearly as bad as if nothing had been done at all, so doing it means you get both the flattened curved and the big spike in cases instead of just the big spike. 

My view is that needlessly delaying herd immunity among populations that are at low risk from the virus is counterproductive, especially in the long term.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

No you’re wrong.  Just take a look at H1N1 or SARS for example.  The amount of infection is absolutely not the same.  You’re the one that doesn’t seem to understand.  

None of what you said has anything to do with what I just said, total non-sequitur.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

None of the experts are making the claims you are about flattening the curve. If the medical capacity line is far lower than social distancing can flatten the curve, then things will bad for longer, not shorter. Many experts say that after things are no longer totally shut down there will be a surge in cases due to a lack of herd immunity that will be nearly as bad as if nothing had been done at all, so doing it means you get both the flattened curved and the big spike in cases instead of just the big spike. 

My view is that needlessly delaying herd immunity among populations that are at low risk from the virus is counterproductive.

Who was it then?  Dennis Compton?  Dolly Parton?  The 1999 Manchester United treble winning team?

Could it be the Russians?

As for your last sentence, band aid solution it is.  I just differ, that's all.

Edited March 22, 2020 by bcsapper

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Who was it then?  Dennis Compton?  Dolly Parton?  The 1999 Manchester United treble winning team?

Could it be the Russians?

As for your last sentence, band aid solution it is.  I just differ, that's all.

Do your own homework, apparently you only listen to experts who claim the sky is falling, and claim that shutting down the economy is the only way to fight the virus, and none of the experts who say anything different. If you think there is a massive consensus about the right course of action and flattening the curve is the best measure there is, you're wrong.

[Shady]

14 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

None of what you said has anything to do with what I just said, total non-sequitur.

I guess we can agree to disagree.  

[Guest]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Do your own homework, apparently you only listen to experts who claim the sky is falling, and claim that shutting down the economy is the only way to fight the virus, and none of the experts who say anything different. If you think there is a massive consensus about the right course of action and flattening the curve is the best measure there is, you're wrong.

Are we arguing about the virus or the economy?  What the effect of the correct action will have on the economy is a different argument, is it not? 

I'm not proud, though.  I think the UK initially bought into the herd immunity theory, but their experts shut that down pretty quickly.  If you know of other experts that think the way they did initially I'd be happy to compare their notes.  (summaries and conclusions only of course.  I actually still go to work)