If you look at the timeline of Coronavirus spread, every city had more new cases of Coronavirus after sheltee in place was implemented than before. States with earlier or stricter shelter in place rules also have more cases. It's time to get rid of shelter in place which is causing so many deaths.
Your premise is suspect by the reality that the outbreaks are in large metro areas where public transportation has been used extensively. The virus lives the longest on metal surfaces, so handrails on buses and trains are lethal.
The policy will be implemented when a significant number of cases is identified in an area. With no protective measures but a small number of cases, the spread will start relatively slowly. With the protections in place but a large number of cases, there will still be larger spread because not everyone follows the measures completely and correctly and no system is perfect. It'll still be significantly lower than having a large number of cases and no protections. You're making the classic correlation but no causation error. By what kind of mechanism do you imagine the "shelter in place" policy could significantly increase spread?
Yeah, damn skippy. All you have to do is compare California to NY. California jumped on the stay home bandwagon before there even was a bandwagon and look at them today!!! Almost 10000 cases and LA has 66 deaths already. Just compare that to New York City that just now closed parks. OH wait. New York has 88,000 cases and has 1374 dead. I guess that doesn't fit well with the narrative. If you don't want to be part of the solution fine, but don't add to the problem with foolish theories based on gut feelings that fly in the face of reality.
Washington is a better example. That was where the first patient was detected and the first deaths occurred. But Washington has seen linear and not exponential growth. They quickly closed schools and then went to shelter in place.
Lol, and black is the new white. Even your fellow Trump fans won't touch this thread with a 10 foot pole. But, seriously, what is the science that supports your hypothesis? Give it a try, we'll wait.
What a moronic thread. My God. Cases increase because there is a lag between when you get infected and when you get sick Cases increase because people like the OP don't take it seriously and DON'T actually "shelter in place" Cases increase because we still have to have some interaction to get food and supplies
California is spread out. Hardly anyone uses public transportation, at least in LA, you only ever see crowds at events or in open outdoors like the beaches. Even stores are rarely crowded. A closer comparison would NYC and Chicago...
Which is your way of confirming that less contact results in less transmission. OP is under the misconception that reducing contact is anti productive.
I don't think anyone can really believe that reducing contact is anti-productive. My feeling: The OP is trying to be willfully ignorant, regurgitating misinformation he picked up on crackpot websites. While crises like this one bring out the best in people (look at, for example, our health care personnel), they also bring out the worst in people, for example conspiracy theorists spreading nonsense on the web, scammers and con-artists. For example, we moved to all online teaching at our university. We are watching live as cheating in online exams and students taking advantage of the situation by trying to get easy As has exploded. These would have been normally good and responsible student. And this is just a glimpse of what one could expect in breaking down of social norms, should the crisis get a lot worse. I think what crises like this one highlight is how good we had it before the crisis started. Yet, what did we do? Complain, complain, because it could have been even better. And in the fervor of fixing a system that is working and was not broken, we risk destroying it (see, for example, Trump's tax cuts).
Not really. Areas like NYC that tightly packed will be hardest hit, spread areas won't be, the added distancing isn't as relevant as some claim for vast tracts of America...
Right....more tightly packed means more potential for contact with many more people. Hence why NYC is hardest hit and rural areas are not.
The less tightly packed areas will get it too, the spread to those is just delayed because their rate of travel is lower. If people in these less tightly packed areas keep going to church in large groups, they'll have a rough awakening, see for example Albany, Georgia. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/us/albany-georgia-coronavirus/index.html You may feel safe in those spread-out areas, but you are really not, unless you, too, practice social distancing.
Which is why rural people rightly see all these restrictions as overblown. The two counties I frequent have fewer than 100k people combined, spread across hundreds of square miles. The most densely populated areas could still contain any problems quickly with no need to shut things down...
Except that the more you are around more people the greater the chance of contracting the virus. That much is very obvious.
