Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, but again, a premium was put more on physical well being from serious illness. When this is all over, that will be an interesting discussion to have, based on data.You disagree that isolation causes depression, drug abuse and alcoholism?
My point is that substituting money earned from having a job, with stimulus cash, is not going to work. We cannot continue to ask the entire nation to hide away in their homes, and it will be okay, cuz stimulus checks are in the mail.We just passed the $2+ trillion stimulus, and we lost another 4.4 million jobs. Simply tossing money from a helicopter, is not going to create jobs, not if everyone is locked up in their homes, and business owners are going bankrupt.
Yeah, but it is keeping people fed and clothed. And remember that stimulus money - the vast majority of it - is going straight back out into the economy as people buy essentials.
And whose to say that the job-loss figure wouldn't be six or seven million.
And let's not forget you called is 'looting the treasury'. I take looting to mean politicians are taking the money themselves for their own gain. Simply not true.
That's why the pot stores and liquor stores are allowed to remain open in a lot of states.You disagree that isolation causes depression, drug abuse and alcoholism? You don’t think isolation and loss of business is damaging? That damages those who are and are not impacted by COVID, which mostly impacts those who are elderly and or unhealthy. We never did that study but just locked us all in.Correct. But i was referring to science based medicine, not preventative measures meant to err on the side of caution regarding the economy. Seeing the difference would involve placing a premium on just physical well being, which is medicine.We didn’t have “good evidence” that lockdowns would prevent the spread but we cautiously did so to supposedly save lives?
No, you don’t, tough guyThis is a free country. I do what I want, when I want, and where I want
Flu is not nearly as contagious and there is a vaccine. COVID is closer to a severe cold. Know anyone with a cold? You WILL get it. Just a matter of time.
You disagree that isolation causes depression, drug abuse and alcoholism? You don’t think isolation and loss of business is damaging? That damages those who are and are not impacted by COVID, which mostly impacts those who are elderly and or unhealthy. We never did that study but just locked us all in.
If you are going to dismiss everything anyone says, without empirical evidence to back them up, than you better stop making any comments about the virus or about the comments made, since anything and everything you say, including dismissing the speculations by others, will only be speculation on your part.In this case, empirical evidence that demonstrates effectiveness of that treatment. The same way effectiveness is determined for any drug or treatment. I didnt invent these rules. They have been around for a while.Define “good evidence”.Only when they assert something as true without good evidence. Welcome to how science works. You can use your tea leaves or magic 8 ball, if you prefer.You are really stuck on dismissing anything anyone comments about, concerning COVID-19, unless it comes from empirical evidence.
Lockdown implement March 26. Looks like 'good' evidence to me.
So what? How something "looks" is not evidence. You would have to somehow show that such a curve wouldn't have occured anyway, or would have been significantly different.
Dont get me wrong, i think it makes a difference and it makes sense that it would nake a difference. But these things are not good empirical evidence that it has.
Wishing or believing something is true does not mean it is. As we are seeing with chloroquine.
So, I ask again, what is the difference?I agree. Social Distancing and lockdowns are not the same thing.Do you know how he defines "lockdown" as opposed to "social distancing?" Because every state that didn't "lockdown" DID follow social distancing measures, which to me is pretty much the same thing.
There is no empirical evidence for these lockdowns
Comparing US states shows there is no relationship between lockdowns and lower Covid-19 deaths.www.google.com
This is science NOT opinion.
The most basic way to test this thesis is by direct comparison. As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in place orders and their stats are in line with those that did even when adjusting for population density.
Open the country!
No, it’s saying government mandated behavior isn’t any more effective than people being free to make their own choices on how to avoid getting the Wuhan virus.So you are saying that I have an equal chance of catching the virus if I'm at home alone or if I'm in a packed football stadium?
“Lockdown” doesn’t have a meaning. Everything any state has done falls under the category of social distancing.So, I ask again, what is the difference?I agree. Social Distancing and lockdowns are not the same thing.Do you know how he defines "lockdown" as opposed to "social distancing?" Because every state that didn't "lockdown" DID follow social distancing measures, which to me is pretty much the same thing.There is no empirical evidence for these lockdowns
Comparing US states shows there is no relationship between lockdowns and lower Covid-19 deaths.
This is science NOT opinion.
The most basic way to test this thesis is by direct comparison. As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in place orders and their stats are in line with those that did even when adjusting for population density.
Open the country!
Sure I do. I'm not a sheeple that bows down to media talking points or politicians. I, like most conservatives, can think and do for myself. All I need is a bow, a pole, a 3030, and some rope and I'm good.No, you don’t, tough guyThis is a free country. I do what I want, when I want, and where I want
If that's the case, the title of the article in the OP is misleading. He seems to be arguing about a phantom. I've asked TWICE what the difference is, and no one seems to be able to tell me.“Lockdown” doesn’t have a meaning. Everything any state has done falls under the category of social distancing.So, I ask again, what is the difference?I agree. Social Distancing and lockdowns are not the same thing.Do you know how he defines "lockdown" as opposed to "social distancing?" Because every state that didn't "lockdown" DID follow social distancing measures, which to me is pretty much the same thing.There is no empirical evidence for these lockdowns
Comparing US states shows there is no relationship between lockdowns and lower Covid-19 deaths.
This is science NOT opinion.
The most basic way to test this thesis is by direct comparison. As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in place orders and their stats are in line with those that did even when adjusting for population density.
Open the country!
If that's the case, the title of the article in the OP is misleading. He seems to be arguing about a phantom. I've asked TWICE what the difference is, and no one seems to be able to tell me.“Lockdown” doesn’t have a meaning. Everything any state has done falls under the category of social distancing.So, I ask again, what is the difference?I agree. Social Distancing and lockdowns are not the same thing.Do you know how he defines "lockdown" as opposed to "social distancing?" Because every state that didn't "lockdown" DID follow social distancing measures, which to me is pretty much the same thing.There is no empirical evidence for these lockdowns
Comparing US states shows there is no relationship between lockdowns and lower Covid-19 deaths.
This is science NOT opinion.
The most basic way to test this thesis is by direct comparison. As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in place orders and their stats are in line with those that did even when adjusting for population density.
Open the country!
So another cleverly worded piece of trash?
My point is that substituting money earned from having a job, with stimulus cash, is not going to work. We cannot continue to ask the entire nation to hide away in their homes, and it will be okay, cuz stimulus checks are in the mail.
As I've said, people under 40 years old should be going back to work, while observing mitigation protocol. It does not make sense for a governors all over this nation to order entire states to continue sheltering at home, when their are no infections in some of their counties.
This virus does not affect all age groups the same; providing they are healthy. The virus also has not infected all states, their cities or counties the same. So using a blanket policy for the entire nation, or even an entire state, is not logical.
I used "looting" because some politicians were looting the treasury to benefit their special interest groups. Where the hell did it make sense to give tens of millions to the Kennedy Center? It makes it look especially silly, when the Kennedy Center went ahead and furloughed hundreds of employees after getting their money.
But hiding from the disease does nothing for us, since if a vaccine can be created it's still 6-10 months away. We cannot lock down for that long, we'd destroy our nation, and we'd have economic devastation, and about 40% unemployment.Well, naturally, the thread title is wrong. But it seems we are not yet seeing good evidence that the lockdowns have affected the curve. This is an interesting topic that is going to require a lot more data and analysis (instead of apples to oranges comparisons between states so early on).
Ya good point - All the data we get is a snapshot from 2-3 weeks back. I'd still maintain that lockdowns ARE positively affecting the curve.
The people in the 40 and under age groups are reportedly the most resistant, and need to get back to work, albeit still observing mitigation protocol. The rest of the people need to be very careful, and the elderly may need to keep sheltering at home, and being careful going to buy food, etc... But not everyone needs to keep staying locked up in home, it's just insane.
There are counties in my state that still have not had one person test positive, and yet my governor wants to extend the shelter at home, for the entire freaking state, until mid to late May.
"AS MANY AS"...that's not amorphous at all.It is guaranteed that as many as 5% of those who get the virus die.
As many as 5% of? Octogenarians? Cancer patients? Immune compromised? Clowns? Yogis?
We do not have enough data yet to make the claim that the fatality rate for those who catch COVID-19 is 5%. Maybe that is the death rate for people over 75 years old, with one or more comorbidity. But to say it's 5% across the board is silly.Oswlald is a rich celebrity and an idiot. I had the Virus it is not guaranteed death. Far from it. Nazis killed my people. That was guaranteed. Apples and oranges. You're an idiot.There is no empirical evidence for these lockdowns
Comparing US states shows there is no relationship between lockdowns and lower Covid-19 deaths.
This is science NOT opinion.
The most basic way to test this thesis is by direct comparison. As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in place orders and their stats are in line with those that did even when adjusting for population density.
Open the country!
View attachment 326939
It is guaranteed that as many as 5% of those who get the virus die. That makes it 50 times deadlier than the flu. To suggest that it wasn't that bad for you and therefore it isn't that bad period is misleading and frankly, kinda dangerous.
As of Wednesday, the United States had a 5.4% mortality rate based on a percentage of overall cases, according to the Johns Hopkins data.
Fact Check: Trump says the US coronavirus mortality rate is 'one of the lowest' in the world
President Trump claims the U.S. has "one of the lowest" coronavirus mortality rates in the world. Here's what the numbers say.www.usatoday.com
NY state is testing the population for the antigen. About 20% of NYC population already has the antigen. That's getting close to two million New Yorkers who had the virus already, and prob didn't even know it at the time.
Here we are, showing what happens when the lockdown is left later and not rigorously enforced.So what? How something "looks" is not evidence. You would have to somehow show that such a curve wouldn't have occured anyway, or would have been significantly different.
I know you did...unfortunately it's fucking USA Today. Where is the study? Not a story about the study."AS MANY AS"...that's not amorphous at all.It is guaranteed that as many as 5% of those who get the virus die.
As many as 5% of? Octogenarians? Cancer patients? Immune compromised? Clowns? Yogis?
I included a link, but Trumptards don't need no links. Whatever Professor Tingle Ingergoober Bloober.
