Discussion in 'Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions' started by Arkanis, May 21, 2020.
And the remaining 36k over time.
Yes, under this analysis. I think it is entirely possible that more could have been done to reduce that number further, but the simple change of implementing social distancing one week prior would have had a significant impact.
With that said, I don't think there is any question that this virus was always going to suck.
If by "over time," you are referencing the fact that "those 36K would have died at some point in the future from some cause," then yea.
But that appears to be limit of your ability to make any argument.
They were granted their power to do what they did by the Feds declaring a national health emergency. Why this has to be explained every damn day a thousand or more times to Repub geniuses I don't understand.
Doesn't understand what this represents
First off, kudos for actually trying to back up your bullshit. Second, give it slightly more thought next time.
That big ass graphic is a reference to the infection rate being spread out over a longer period of time. When that happens, the percentage of folks with the virus who die decreases.
I'm still not certain that the president has the authority to implement any kind of nationwide "social distancing" policies.
Do you believe that the good results in controlling the pandemic in countries like Canada, Germany and South Korea are due to interventions of Jesus Christ?
First you have to demonstrate capacity, then show that this capacity would have been exceeded, figure out the exact number of deaths prevented from not exceeding capacity, noting that all of our deaths thus far have taken place while capacity was far from exceeded. Then you must provide a number to treat analysis, calculating the number of infections over time due to increasing the population exposure time, with resultant deaths, in order to demonstrate that any lives were saved.
Ready, set, go
Not even going to pretend like I give a crap about jumping through any new hurdle that you want to make when you are incapable of producing **** by yourself.
The one aspect to your logic that I will denote is that "exceeding hospital capacity" is not the only method through which reducing the curve saves lives. As an initial matter, if a vaccine gets created before the end of the lower peaked curve is reached, then you have, by definition, almost certainly reduced the total number of infections. But even if the number of infections is ultimately the same amount, the other method through which lowering the peak of the curve saves lives is because it gives the medical infrastructure time to research the virus and develop viable treatment methods.
So as an example, if it turns out that remdisivir works to reduce the likelihood of severe illness, then lowering the curve will give the medical infrastructure more time to develop and produce enough doses so that more people are saved from death.
There doesn't need to be any more of an argument though, it's precisely the point. The shutdowns did not avert cases, not here and not in China(oh especially not in China, they just got caught with their hands in their pants about the data.).
Destroying people's livelihoods so they avoid a virus, was mindnumbingly the dumbest thing we ever tried to do. And like all dumb things, it backfired completely. The contact tracers are important, so that we can do what universally historically has been done with pandemics: Contact trace and isolate, so that the healthy are separated from the sick.
The only problem is: We were too busy with this dumb idea, that we diverted all that time(and deprived ourselves of all those people) who could've been contact tracers! *facepalm* So now we're behind on that.
I think a lesson that every government has learned, is that people outside of the government(the modelers) cannot and should not be consulted for 'advice'. They don't have the ability to give that advice, if they did they would've ran in the first place.
You made the claim.
This is how you make your claim credible.
So still no actual support of your claim, just hypotheticals.
You want him to write a doctoral dissertation, only to dismiss it with a one liner. I can see why he doesn't want to play that game.
What part confuses you? The logic is self evident.
There is no need. It is undeniable that delaying deaths until there are treatments or a vaccine will certainly save lives.
It is not "undeniable". It is "speculative".
"Self evident" is not how science works, and how incredible blunders are made
Your comment is proof that you can't do the analysis either
I backed up the claim with multiple newspaper and journal articles as well as graphs to help lead you along. You have produced precisely jack ****.
I mean...I guess? It would be better to say that it is extremely likely.
If you have better treatments and those treatments are more widely available, then it is extremely likely that you will save lives.
You did the analysis ?
You know exactly what capacity our healthcare system had, how much curve flattening was needed to get below that capacity( note we were never close to capacity), how much curve flattening was actually produced, how long that reduction extended the time this virus will circulate, the total number of infections this will produce, whether increased, decreased or the same, and most importantly the resulting effect on deaths over time for each death prevented by staying below capacity?
Actually, you presented none of this, and neither did any of your articles.
But who's really paying attention anyway?
Nice try.....try again.
We don't believe the IPCC when they say it either
Meanwhile this Thing is only just starting on rural America where there are fewer ICU beds percapita and an ageing population
that is because..........
Ah! Forget it! No use arguing with those who will not listen to science
Really? Linking to raw data?
Did you look at the Australian numbers while you are at it?
Separate names with a comma.