Coronavirus - What are you doing to pass the time during lock down?

[Naz]

12 minutes ago, pennan said:

https://www.businesstoday.in/current/world/sweden-the-world-champion-of-herd-immunity-in-fight-against-coronavirus/story/401751.html

Well... that is a BUSINESS journal who really only specializes in Economic, not scientific/medical.  Plus the story itself contradicts the headline at the end.

Here are some telling stats:
Sweden 17.3 deaths per 100,000
Neighbouring Norway 3.37 deaths per 100,000
Finland 2.56 deaths per 100,000.

Herd Immunity only works with vaccines,  There is no vaccine.  Getting it once and recovering does NOT make you immune as the article suggests.  There are reports of recovered people getting sick again.

[CJ Boiss]

1 hour ago, estogoalie said:

Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I don't think a 3 week global lockdown will make the virus virtually disappear. Maybe it could have been contained in Wuhan in the early days, but by now it's so widespread, it's impossible to contain it. And then even when this wave subsides, there will be a second and thrid wave around the corner. A vaccine is not expected for another year or two, and by then the virus will mutate anyway. There's no good answer. There will be dead bodies in any case. So what's the call, Chief? Lock the world down indefinitely?

I think what's going to happen in the next months/years is a hybrid solution of social distancing, hygene measures (disinfection, plexiglass at the checkout, etc.) and things like that. NHL and other sports will play to empty stadiums, if at all. But the lockdown in the current state can't last much longer, it's not a long-term solution, life has to go on, in one way or another.

One recent good news, is the test for detecting antibodies is coming on a massive scale soon, so people can be tested to see if they had the virus already, and may be immune to it. So maybe if it's discovered that enough people were already exposed, a "herd immunity" might be happening right now anyway, and if it happens on a large enough scale, that may actually be the answer before a vaccine is even found.

Actually, if literally everyone was able to sit in their homes for two weeks, then the coronavirus would die out. Completely and utterly. I'm talking literally every single person in the world stays home, doesn't leave for anything, for two weeks. Coronavirus incubates for two weeks: if it isn't provided new hosts to jump to, then it starves. It dies out. Done and dusted.

No, widespread lockdowns are not sustainable in the long-term. Nobody thinks they are. That's why it's important to make sure this lockdown, to address the first wave, is done properly. Because if it isn't, there won't be a second wave, or a third wave; coronavirus will just run rampant through society, overwhelm the healthcare system, and kill millions of people.

There are measures that the government can take to help people through this lockdown. Stimulus payments to individuals being the most important one. Capitalist economies collapse when people don't have money to spend, all the business bailouts in the world won't change that. China, for whatever missteps they made in informing the rest of the world what was going on in Wuhan, got their shit on lock when it came to quarantines and self-isolation. The exact measures they took are not replicable in most democracies around the world, but the broad strokes are something that everyone needs to embrace if we want to have any semblance of normalcy two or three months from now.

And as great as serological tests are, we've already got evidence that the coronavirus has mutated enough that people who had it once can get it again. So that's another strike against pursuing a herd immunity strategy. The likely result, at the end of all this, is that a coronavirus vaccine turns into something like the yearly flu vaccine.

[estogoalie]

9 hours ago, CJ Boiss said:

Actually, if literally everyone was able to sit in their homes for two weeks, then the coronavirus would die out. Completely and utterly. I'm talking literally every single person in the world stays home, doesn't leave for anything, for two weeks. Coronavirus incubates for two weeks: if it isn't provided new hosts to jump to, then it starves. It dies out. Done and dusted.

No, widespread lockdowns are not sustainable in the long-term. Nobody thinks they are. That's why it's important to make sure this lockdown, to address the first wave, is done properly. Because if it isn't, there won't be a second wave, or a third wave; coronavirus will just run rampant through society, overwhelm the healthcare system, and kill millions of people.

If it was only 2-3 weeks of lockdown it wouldn't be too bad, but here in Switzerland we started March 13 and will go until at least June 8, so almost 3 months, maybe longer. In the US the states are not giving any dates to end lockdown, could be indefinite (read). So we are talking months, not weeks, which sounds long-term to me. And no lock-down is 100% gauranteed, people still have to go food-shopping, "essential" people have to still go to work, etc. so the virus won't disappear. 2nd and 3rd wave all but gauranteed. As you said, it will become something like a seasonal flu, which is awfully hard to contain or avoid. So if pretty much everyone will get it anyway, remind me again the benefits of months of full lockdown?

Meanwhile, economies are collapsing, people losing jobs and suffering in other ways (eg. spousal abuse, alcohol abuse, suicides, etc.), governments are becoming more authoritarian, privacy rights are disappearing, etc... for what again? To delay the spread of a disease that anyway can't be stopped? I agree 2-3 weeks is ok if it would really help, and maybe longer in special cases like Italy, Spain, New York,... but you can't lock the world down indefinitely....it just won't work. Ramadan is this week, and Mosques will be full in Pakistan, despite government orders. Pakistan is a billion people. The handful of Easter churches that went on in the US will be a drop in the bucket next to that.

Pic below is a market in Pakistan this week. (On the bright side, Pakistan has only 224 coronavirus deaths so far....)

[coopaloop1234]

7 hours ago, estogoalie said:

Pic below is a market in Pakistan this week. (On the bright side, Pakistan has only 224 coronavirus deaths so far....)

Only 200 deaths. No big deal right? 

And no offense, but utilizing Pakistan's and other comparable countries' reporting as examples that social distancing/lockdown measures aren't needed is pretty asinine. 

It's like actually believing China is only at 83,000 total cases. 

[CJ Boiss]

8 hours ago, estogoalie said:

If it was only 2-3 weeks of lockdown it wouldn't be too bad, but here in Switzerland we started March 13 and will go until at least June 8, so almost 3 months, maybe longer. In the US the states are not giving any dates to end lockdown, could be indefinite (read). So we are talking months, not weeks, which sounds long-term to me. And no lock-down is 100% gauranteed, people still have to go food-shopping, "essential" people have to still go to work, etc. so the virus won't disappear. 2nd and 3rd wave all but gauranteed. As you said, it will become something like a seasonal flu, which is awfully hard to contain or avoid. So if pretty much everyone will get it anyway, remind me again the benefits of months of full lockdown?

Meanwhile, economies are collapsing, people losing jobs and suffering in other ways (eg. spousal abuse, alcohol abuse, suicides, etc.), governments are becoming more authoritarian, privacy rights are disappearing, etc... for what again? To delay the spread of a disease that anyway can't be stopped? I agree 2-3 weeks is ok if it would really help, and maybe longer in special cases like Italy, Spain, New York,... but you can't lock the world down indefinitely....it just won't work. Ramadan is this week, and Mosques will be full in Pakistan, despite government orders. Pakistan is a billion people. The handful of Easter churches that went on in the US will be a drop in the bucket next to that.

Pic below is a market in Pakistan this week. (On the bright side, Pakistan has only 224 coronavirus deaths so far....)

Some people can't afford to buy three weeks worth of food all at once. Some people work critical jobs that they can't stay home from. Some people are fucking idiots and think that wandering around and bumping elbows with people while shouting about how they're being oppressed is a good idea. That's why no lockdown is ever going to be "100%", that's why it's going to last longer than 2-3 weeks, that's why there are going to be second and third waves. But if this gets half-assed right now, what'll end up happening is the second wave will be far, far worse than the first (as happened in 1918). That's why we're going to be practicing extreme social distancing and hygiene protocols until we get a vaccine developed, so that not everyone gets it, so that immuno-compromised and at-risk people don't get killed.

And economies are not collapsing, they are paused. Stock markets are getting hammered, yeah, and people can't work, true, but this isn't the Great Depression, hell, this isn't even 2008. The work exists, there are employers who want people to do it, but nobody can because of this pandemic; the second people are able to go back to work all that changes. Recovery won't be a matter of years and decades, it will be a matter of weeks and months. (and governments have been slipping into authoritarianism, taking away your privacy rights, for two decades, that's not anything new)

The Pakistani government's inability to enforce stay-at-home orders is going to end up getting tens of thousands of people killed, if they're lucky, mark my words. Certainly, they are not who we should be trying to emulate right now.

[estogoalie]

40 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Only 200 deaths. No big deal right? 

And no offense, but utilizing Pakistan's and other comparable countries' reporting as examples that social distancing/lockdown measures aren't needed is pretty asinine. 

It's like actually believing China is only at 83,000 total cases. 

I think Pakistan was a perfect example in that, 1) It's impossible for the world to go into full lockdown and make the virus go away, and 2) the statistics out there right now are pretty much bullshit. 

25 minutes ago, CJ Boiss said:

That's why no lockdown is ever going to be "100%", that's why it's going to last longer than 2-3 weeks, that's why there are going to be second and third waves. But if this gets half-assed right now, what'll end up happening is the second wave will be far, far worse than the first (as happened in 1918). That's why we're going to be practicing extreme social distancing and hygiene protocols until we get a vaccine developed, so that not everyone gets it, so that immuno-compromised and at-risk people don't get killed.

Exactly, the lockdown is not going to be very effective because of multiple reasons (eg. necessary work, need to buy food, protestors, religious worshippers, human nature, etc.), so the best that can be done is social distance measures, hygene, etc. until a vaccine is developed. Which is basically what Sweden is doing right now. They are doing basically the same as other EU countries, except at the same time acknowledging that locking the country down won't really bring any benefit because it can't be 100% enforced, so they are not doing that. They are still doing social distancing, hand sanitizing, etc. They are not Pakistan with hundreds/thousands of people still jamming into markets and mosques...and they also aren't throwing people in jail for taking a jog on the beach (like the USA) or making them show travel authorization papers to go buy milk (like France). They aren't falling into extremes, but taking a more cool-headed and practical approach.  Which in my opinion is the best way. Sweden got this one right.

[CJ Boiss]

13 minutes ago, estogoalie said:

Exactly, the lockdown is not going to be very effective because of multiple reasons (eg. necessary work, need to buy food, protestors, religious worshippers, human nature, etc.), so the best that can be done is social distance measures, hygene, etc. until a vaccine is developed. Which is basically what Sweden is doing right now. They are doing basically the same as other EU countries, except at the same time acknowledging that locking the country down won't really bring any benefit because it can't be 100% enforced, so they are not doing that. They are still doing social distancing, hand sanitizing, etc. They are not Pakistan with hundreds/thousands of people still jamming into markets and mosques...and they also aren't throwing people in jail for taking a jog on the beach (like the USA) or making them show travel authorization papers to go buy milk (like France). They aren't falling into extremes, but taking a more cool-headed and practical approach.  Which in my opinion is the best way. Sweden got this one right.

"Not 100%" is not the same as "not very effective". For as bad as everything is in the States right now, they're looking at around 100-200 thousand deaths, as compared to over two million deaths without mitigation  efforts. Quarantine and stay-at-home measures are helping, even if some people aren't observing them.

And Sweden has not "got this one right", the numbers are very clear about that. There are thousands of Swedes who have died unnecessarily so far, and there could be many thousands more by the time all is said and done.

[estogoalie]

1 hour ago, CJ Boiss said:

"Not 100%" is not the same as "not very effective". For as bad as everything is in the States right now, they're looking at around 100-200 thousand deaths, as compared to over two million deaths without mitigation  efforts. Quarantine and stay-at-home measures are helping, even if some people aren't observing them.

For sure quarantining will help to some degree, but they are totally pulling these numbers out of their asses. Nobody has any clue. ...and what about when the 2nd and 3rd waves come?

[coopaloop1234]

2 minutes ago, estogoalie said:

For sure quarantining will help to some degree, but they are totally pulling these numbers out of their asses. Nobody has any clue. ...and what about when the 2nd and 3rd waves come?

You know that infection graphs aren't some made up number and there's a ton of valid studies that back it up right? 

It's not like the methods being put in place by the WHO, you know the group entirely responsible for studying these things, is some out of left field dreamt up response. Second and Third waves are going to come, it's just that semi lockdowns reduce the strain on the healthcare systems for the first wave and concurrent waves. 

Sweden has had one of the highest death rates related to Covid. Especially for one of the most developed countries. I wouldn't say you guys are killing it and most controversy about how Sweden is handling it is well deserved. 

[CJ Boiss]

1 hour ago, estogoalie said:

For sure quarantining will help to some degree, but they are totally pulling these numbers out of their asses. Nobody has any clue. ...and what about when the 2nd and 3rd waves come?

No, they aren't. Statistical models provide us with roughly accurate guesses about what will happen in the general population. Those models are inaccurate when real-life circumstances take a direction that the model didn't incorporate. For instance, if everyone started taking things very seriously, and the US successfully increases their hospital capacity by a very wide margin, then the original models would over-estimate the severity of the pandemic in the US. On the other hand, if people don't take it seriously enough, and half-ass the lockdowns and self-quarantines, then the models will end up under-estimating the severity of the pandemic.

As for the second and third wave, well, this is what happened in 1918 (from the CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/three-waves.htm):

 

That's something I'd very much like to avoid this time around. And, we might be able to. We know a great deal more about viruses and pandemics than we did back then, our medical technology and hospital capacity is much greater, and our communications technology allow experts to educate the rest of the population on how to safely conduct themselves in their daily lives and interactions. So, if everybody pulls together and takes this seriously, we might be able to avoid second and third waves that are significantly more deadly than the first.

[estogoalie]

2 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

You know that infection graphs aren't some made up number and there's a ton of valid studies that back it up right? 

It's not like the methods being put in place by the WHO, you know the group entirely responsible for studying these things, is some out of left field dreamt up response. Second and Third waves are going to come, it's just that semi lockdowns reduce the strain on the healthcare systems for the first wave and concurrent waves. 

Sweden has had one of the highest death rates related to Covid. Especially for one of the most developed countries. I wouldn't say you guys are killing it and most controversy about how Sweden is handling it is well deserved. 

The WHO? For those with a short memory (January 23, 2020):

The World Health Organization on Thursday decided not to declare the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak a global emergency, despite the spread of the dangerous respiratory infection from China to at least five other countries.

Although the disease has reached beyond China, the number of cases in other countries is still relatively small, and the disease does not seem to be spreading within those countries, agency officials said. Of more than 800 cases now reported, the wide majority — and all the 25 deaths — have been in China, according to Chinese officials.

“At this time, there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China,” Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the W.H.O.’s director general, said at a news conference in Geneva.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/health/china-virus-who-emergency.html

1 hour ago, CJ Boiss said:

No, they aren't. Statistical models provide us with roughly accurate guesses about what will happen in the general population. Those models are inaccurate when real-life circumstances take a direction that the model didn't incorporate. For instance, if everyone started taking things very seriously, and the US successfully increases their hospital capacity by a very wide margin, then the original models would over-estimate the severity of the pandemic in the US. On the other hand, if people don't take it seriously enough, and half-ass the lockdowns and self-quarantines, then the models will end up under-estimating the severity of the pandemic.

As for the second and third wave, well, this is what happened in 1918 (from the CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/three-waves.htm):

 

That's something I'd very much like to avoid this time around. And, we might be able to. We know a great deal more about viruses and pandemics than we did back then, our medical technology and hospital capacity is much greater, and our communications technology allow experts to educate the rest of the population on how to safely conduct themselves in their daily lives and interactions. So, if everybody pulls together and takes this seriously, we might be able to avoid second and third waves that are significantly more deadly than the first.

Models are only as good as what goes into them. Garbage in, garbage out. The models predicting catastrophic millions of dead from COVID-19 were based on wrong mortality rates. They didn't have enough testing capability at that time to find out that there are alot of people who have it but are asymptomatic, they were mainly just testing sick people already in hospital, so of course mortality rates will be high if that's all who are tested. A new German study this month says mortalitiy rate is 0.4% (not quite Ebola or the Black Plague, probably closer to influenza), so put that into the model and see how wildly the charts change. And really, even that is probably not reliable or accurate, I think the actual number will probably be even lower than that once more widespread testing is done. We'll have to wait and see....

----------------

“Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate—2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others,” the article, headlined "Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?" and written by Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, reads. “So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as-they-say-professors-claim-more-data-needed-to-know-mortality-rate

[coopaloop1234]

Quote

he WHO? For those with a short memory (January 23, 2020):

The World Health Organization on Thursday decided not to declare the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak a global emergency, despite the spread of the dangerous respiratory infection from China to at least five other countries.

I don't understand your point here? Are you stating that the WHO should be discredited because on the 23rd of January they didn't want to declare a worldwide emergency?

Should we just ignore that they declared it an emergency on the 30th of January? How does that factor in? 

Quote

“Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate—2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others,” the article, headlined "Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?" and written by Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, reads. “So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.”

1. is a study that hasn't been replicated
2. Is an opinion piece and has no actual scientific basis. 

Both could be very much right as there is a good chance that the mortality rate is far lower than what is being reported. 

Though, the fact that Sweden has over 2'000 deaths from this does seem to portray it's quite deadly. Your normal death rate from the typical flu is roughly 1,000

You guys also have a third of confirmed cases and yet have the same amount of deaths as here in Canada. 

Switzerland has more confirmed cases and less deaths

Denmark and Norway are both faring a lot better than anyone I've listed above. 

Here's just a small comparison for you for your neighboring country. 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

See any major differences? Norway jumped onto the nonessential lockdown train and the results are clear as day. 

It may not seem like a big deal at the moment, but you guys may very well be hit by this extremely hard. Like USA hard. 

Either way, it's obvious you think your country is doing the correct things and you may be right. I think that most of us here would much prefer the more drastic approach and be thought of as wrong than the opposite which Sweden is doing. 

[estogoalie]

1 hour ago, coopaloop1234 said:

I don't understand your point here? Are you stating that the WHO should be discredited because on the 23rd of January they didn't want to declare a worldwide emergency?

Should we just ignore that they declared it an emergency on the 30th of January? How does that factor in?

I'm saying the WHO failed miserably. If they would have done their job and told the truth this could have been stopped in China, but instead they played politics and parroted the Chinese government lies while the virus spread globally. I have a hard time taking WHO as a credible source of anything right now. Here's the timeline of the Coronavirus crisis, WHO was still saying in late January "there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China"...say what? Don't read up on the Dr.Tedros guy heading up the WHO. He's not even a doctor. He's a politician. And a bad one. Has experience in covering up epidemics in Ethiopia, wanted to give dictator Mugabe a position as ambassador, as well as Putin's friend a gig as TB Czar, his appointment was backed by the Chinese. Oh, and today he said Pakistan is doing "impressive" work fighting COVID-19. No joke. This guy is on a roll. The guy is a piece of work. Why would anyone trust anything he or his agency says?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) said on Wednesday (23.April) that it was "impressed" by Pakistan's efforts to deal with the coronavirus pandemic.

WHO's Twitter account, in multiple tweets quoting its director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that it was "impressed by the progress being made" by certain countries, among which was Pakistan for its "commitment to establishing temporary isolation units".

[estogoalie]

1 hour ago, coopaloop1234 said:

You guys also have a third of confirmed cases and yet have the same amount of deaths as here in Canada. 

Switzerland has more confirmed cases and less deaths

Denmark and Norway are both faring a lot better than anyone I've listed above. 

Here's just a small comparison for you for your neighboring country. 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

See any major differences? Norway jumped onto the nonessential lockdown train and the results are clear as day. 

It may not seem like a big deal at the moment, but you guys may very well be hit by this extremely hard. Like USA hard. 

Either way, it's obvious you think your country is doing the correct things and you may be right. I think that most of us here would much prefer the more drastic approach and be thought of as wrong than the opposite which Sweden is doing. 

I'm in Switzerland, not Sweden. In any case, I think deaths per 1 Mill pop would probably be the bet comparison. Switzerland went on full lockdown 13.March, and we have 20 less deaths per Million to show for it compared to Sweden who never went on lockdown. Or total deaths of 500 less. If you believe these stats. So lockdown vs no lockdown in this case is not very big in my opinion. We are not talking about millions or thousands of people "saved". We are talking about "maybe" a couple hundred. Of course every death is sad, but unfortunately it's part of life and part of this current epidemic. You have to ask what the right balance is here. And really, I don't see shutting down the whole country the appropriate measure in this case.

[CJ Boiss]

3 hours ago, estogoalie said:

Models are only as good as what goes into them. Garbage in, garbage out. The models predicting catastrophic millions of dead from COVID-19 were based on wrong mortality rates. They didn't have enough testing capability at that time to find out that there are alot of people who have it but are asymptomatic, they were mainly just testing sick people already in hospital, so of course mortality rates will be high if that's all who are tested. A new German study this month says mortalitiy rate is 0.4% (not quite Ebola or the Black Plague, probably closer to influenza), so put that into the model and see how wildly the charts change. And really, even that is probably not reliable or accurate, I think the actual number will probably be even lower than that once more widespread testing is done. We'll have to wait and see....

----------------

“Fear of Covid-19 is based on its high estimated case fatality rate—2% to 4% of people with confirmed Covid-19 have died, according to the World Health Organization and others,” the article, headlined "Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?" and written by Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, reads. “So if 100 million Americans ultimately get the disease, two million to four million could die. We believe that estimate is deeply flawed. The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/is-the-coronavirus-as-deadly-as-they-say-professors-claim-more-data-needed-to-know-mortality-rate

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Models make certain assumptions, and when those assumptions are wrong then the models are wrong. In almost all cases, the actions we take are what make the models wrong, and ideally our actions lead us towards a less dire situation than the models suggested we would find ourselves in. As for that German study...

COUGH COUGH "The German researchers caution that it would be wrong to extrapolate these regional results to the whole country." COUGH COUGH

When the researchers tell you that their results are not generalizable, it's probably a bad idea to try and generalize them.

1 hour ago, estogoalie said:

I'm saying the WHO failed miserably. If they would have done their job and told the truth this could have been stopped in China, but instead they played politics and parroted the Chinese government lies while the virus spread globally. I have a hard time taking WHO as a credible source of anything right now. Here's the timeline of the Coronavirus crisis, WHO was still saying in late January "there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission outside China"...say what? Don't read up on the Dr.Tedros guy heading up the WHO. He's not even a doctor. He's a politician. And a bad one. Has experience in covering up epidemics in Ethiopia, wanted to give dictator Mugabe a position as ambassador, as well as Putin's friend a gig as TB Czar, his appointment was backed by the Chinese. Oh, and today he said Pakistan is doing "impressive" work fighting COVID-19. No joke. This guy is on a roll. The guy is a piece of work. Why would anyone trust anything he or his agency says?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) said on Wednesday (23.April) that it was "impressed" by Pakistan's efforts to deal with the coronavirus pandemic.

WHO's Twitter account, in multiple tweets quoting its director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that it was "impressed by the progress being made" by certain countries, among which was Pakistan for its "commitment to establishing temporary isolation units".

The WHO did not fail miserably. If you think China was being open and transparent with them then I have a bridge to sell you. They did the best they could with the information they had at each moment. Just because you've found one WHO official that makes questionable statements doesn't mean the entire organization as a whole dropped the ball.

1 hour ago, estogoalie said:

I'm in Switzerland, not Sweden. In any case, I think deaths per 1 Mill pop would probably be the bet comparison. Switzerland went on full lockdown 13.March, and we have 20 less deaths per Million to show for it compared to Sweden who never went on lockdown. Or total deaths of 500 less. If you believe these stats. So lockdown vs no lockdown in this case is not very big in my opinion. We are not talking about millions or thousands of people "saved". We are talking about "maybe" a couple hundred. Of course every death is sad, but unfortunately it's part of life and part of this current epidemic. You have to ask what the right balance is here. And really, I don't see shutting down the whole country the appropriate measure in this case.

You're acting as if the current numbers are the final numbers. We're maybe halfway through the first wave right now, and if history is any indicator the worst is yet to come.

[Max27]

i got bored and shaved my head check the insta @max_tanzi for pics

[estogoalie]

6 hours ago, CJ Boiss said:

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Models make certain assumptions, and when those assumptions are wrong then the models are wrong. In almost all cases, the actions we take are what make the models wrong, and ideally our actions lead us towards a less dire situation than the models suggested we would find ourselves in. As for that German study...

COUGH COUGH "The German researchers caution that it would be wrong to extrapolate these regional results to the whole country." COUGH COUGH

When the researchers tell you that their results are not generalizable, it's probably a bad idea to try and generalize them.

The WHO did not fail miserably. If you think China was being open and transparent with them then I have a bridge to sell you. They did the best they could with the information they had at each moment. Just because you've found one WHO official that makes questionable statements doesn't mean the entire organization as a whole dropped the ball.

You're acting as if the current numbers are the final numbers. We're maybe halfway through the first wave right now, and if history is any indicator the worst is yet to come.

German researchers are absolutely correct to say their findings are just for one area and that more sampling is needed over the full country to get a clearer picture. It would be wrong and irresponsible to extrapolate a small sample and make a general statement for the whole country based on that . Yet that is exactly what many countries are doing, because the full picture isn't clear yet. So keep this in mind when you hear someone on TV giving doomsday predictions. 

The WHO did fail miserably, and Tedros is not just "one WHO official" he's the head of the whole organization (!!) It's like saying Putin is just "some guy in Russia"  But the WHO is rotten top to bottom in any case, and won't let Taiwan in because of pressure from China (?) I thought their mission should be above politics, but apparently not. Have you seen this video of another top WHO official (assistant Director) uncomfortable dodging questions from a Taiwan reporter. It's almost comical, and aside from the bird on the screen, it's not edited, you can find it on many news sites.

In other news, Sweden could reach herd immunity quite soon, so let's see how things play out in the coming weeks.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-lockdown-in-sweden-but-stockholm-could-see-herd-immunity-in-weeks.html

[CJ Boiss]

11 minutes ago, estogoalie said:

German researchers are absolutely correct to say their findings are just for one area and that more sampling is needed over the full country to get a clearer picture. It would be wrong and irresponsible to extrapolate a small sample and make a general statement for the whole country based on that . Yet that is exactly what many countries are doing, because the full picture isn't clear yet. So keep this in mind when you hear someone on TV giving doomsday predictions. 

That is, literally, exactly what you attempted to do.

Quote

The WHO did fail miserably, and Tedros is not just "one WHO official" he's the head of the whole organization (!!) It's like saying Putin is just "some guy in Russia"  But the WHO is rotten top to bottom in any case, and won't let Taiwan in because of pressure from China (?) I thought their mission should be above politics, but apparently not. Have you seen this video of another top WHO official (assistant Director) uncomfortable dodging questions from a Taiwan reporter. It's almost comical, and aside from the bird on the screen, it's not edited, you can find it on many news sites.

So the entirety of every organization with an incompetent figurehead is, by extension, incompetent? That logic doesn't parse.

Quote

In other news, Sweden could reach herd immunity quite soon, so let's see how things play out in the coming weeks.

We can already see how it's playing out, and it's playing out very poorly.

[estogoalie]

Quote

The data from this study also suggests that the death rate might be lower than some estimates. 15,500 people had died of COVID-19 in New York as of Thursday afternoon, which would put the death rate at around 0.5%. This would still be several times higher than the death rate of the flu, but not quite as bad as earlier projections.

New York released some extended testing results yesterday, and they show a mortality rate similar to what Germany determined, around 0.5%. As more testing starts go go on, a clearer picture will come out. But so far it's nowhere near the doomsday predictions some people were throwing around earlier with a 5% mortality rate. And keep in mind mortality rate has nothing to do with how much lockdown or social distancing you do. Mortality rate is simply a mathematical fraction: the number of people who died from it over the total number of infected people.

Quote

The numbers are highest in NYC, where 21.2% tested positive.

I would say at this rate, NYC will also soon reach herd immunity (60%) pretty soon as well, despite all their lockdowns. With this rate of infection, lockdowns are simply pointless. 

https://bgr.com/2020/04/23/coronavirus-new-york-spread-study-results/

[JerseyBo]

Woah woah woah. Pump the brakes gang. I started this thread so we can talk goaltending during this crisis. 
let’s get back on target here and stop with the opinion pieces about what is good and what is bad, who is doing it right and wrong during these unprecedented times.
if y’all want to have a quasi political / medical discussion, I believe that is what Facebook was designed to accommodate. 
thanks 

[estogoalie]

1 hour ago, JerseyBo said:

Woah woah woah. Pump the brakes gang. I started this thread so we can talk goaltending during this crisis. 
let’s get back on target here and stop with the opinion pieces about what is good and what is bad, who is doing it right and wrong during these unprecedented times.
if y’all want to have a quasi political / medical discussion, I believe that is what Facebook was designed to accommodate. 
thanks 

Gotta liven this place up a bit, get's kinda boring here. I miss all the GSBB "hotstove" action.

...but OK, then I'm just sitting around listen to music and waiting for a DeLorean to pull up and take me back to the 80's and get me away from all this 2020 bullshit....can't even "walk among us" anymore without a mask and Lysol bottle....

[ThatCarGuy]

That’s about 6ft right?

[coopaloop1234]

2 hours ago, estogoalie said:

Gotta liven this place up a bit, get's kinda boring here. I miss all the GSBB "hotstove" action.

For sure, it's just internet arguing. It's not like any of this matters.

Plus what else are we supposed to do in lockdown.  

1 hour ago, ThatCarGuy said:

That’s about 6ft right?

[ThatCarGuy]

2 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

For sure, it's just internet arguing. It's not like any of this matters.

Plus what else are we supposed to do in lockdown.  

I may not tan but at least I don’t burn. It’s not a complete loss

[CJ Boiss]

7 hours ago, estogoalie said:

New York released some extended testing results yesterday, and they show a mortality rate similar to what Germany determined, around 0.5%. As more testing starts go go on, a clearer picture will come out. But so far it's nowhere near the doomsday predictions some people were throwing around earlier with a 5% mortality rate. And keep in mind mortality rate has nothing to do with how much lockdown or social distancing you do. Mortality rate is simply a mathematical fraction: the number of people who died from it over the total number of infected people.

I would say at this rate, NYC will also soon reach herd immunity (60%) pretty soon as well, despite all their lockdowns. With this rate of infection, lockdowns are simply pointless. 

https://bgr.com/2020/04/23/coronavirus-new-york-spread-study-results/

"There is one very important caveat to this number, though, as Cuomo explains that the reported coronavirus deaths in New York do not include “at-home deaths,” which would be anyone who died outside of the confines of a hospital or a nursing home. So, at the very least, the 0.5% rate is too low, it’s just unclear how much higher it should be."

It's like you think we can't read the articles you link to, or something? Enough with the fucking cherry-picking to push your herd-immunity nonsense.

Lockdowns have saved lives. Are saving lives. They are not pointless, and everyone should to their best to abide by the measures and protocols advised by the medical community on how to deal with this pandemic.