Lockdowns Did Not Work

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

Damn right on purpose. A purpose that saves MILLIONS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. About 1/3 of the workforce is not working. About the same number that were drafted during World War II and sent overseas to kill Germans and Japs. If the government can send 1/3 of the workforce overseas to kill Germans and Japs in the 1940s, in can pay 1/3 of the workforce to STAY HOME in the 2020s.

Fact, is, most people support what I believe doing and its what 99% of governments around the world are doing. Most people don't support what you believe doing and 99% of governments are not following what you think should be done.

You would be killing millions if you forced isolation for FIVE YEARS!!! Again why do we not isolate during every flu season? NO ONE SUPPORTS A FIVE YEAR LOCKDOWN. Sans you. Since you're insane.

Seasonal flu can be overcome with the flu shot. Its less deadly, and less transmissible than coronavirus. Those three reasons are why we don't lock down for seasonal flu.

People will support the lockdown as long as it takes to make the environment safe for business. As long as the environment is NOT SAFE for business as usual, people will stay home regardless of who opens up.

Flu shots are 45% effective. 99% of COVID patients have mild cold symptoms or no symptoms. You’re such a coward.

 

[Dana7360]

This is science NOT opinion.

Yeah, POLITICAL science, lol.

From the article:
"As a professional political scientist, I have analysed data from the Worldometers Coronavirus project, "

You can stop reading there.

But to continue:
"As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in-place orders, instead imposing social-distancing restrictions such as banning large gatherings and mandating six-foot spacing gaps and maximum customer limits inside all retail stores. "

This is an effective way of fighting the spread of COVID19. The lockdowns were supposed to be for cities with a high fatality rate, like New York, where the lockdown seemed to slow the spread, unless the death count coming down was just a coincidence, but I dont think so. The lockdown in New York and LA, for example was to flatten the curve and not overwhelm the health care system.

Why the lockdown is being applied to all counties of a state instead of only the heavily hit counties sounds like power mongering instead of science.

"the next step of my analysis was to adjust for population, using a standard deaths-per-million metric. "
But that does not adjust for population density, only total population. Siberia has 33 times the population of Rhode Island, but nowhere near the population density or vulnerability to COVID19.


The next section the author basically throws in the towel for his thesis in his own article.

"The ‘p-value’ for the variable representing strategy was 0.94 when it was regressed against the deaths metric, which means there is a 94 per cent chance that any relationship between the different measures and Covid-19 deaths was the result of pure random chance.​

​

The only variable to be statistically significant in terms of cases and deaths was population (p=0.006 and 0.021 respectively). Across the US states, each increase in the population of 100,000 correlated with 1,779 additional Covid-19 cases, even with multiple other factors adjusted for. Large, densely populated areas are more likely to struggle with Covid-19, no matter what response strategy they adopt – although erring on the side of caution might make sense for global megacities such as New York and Chicago.​

I agree with him there, and I think this should be the basis for our national Freedom Day.
Keep Social Distancing in moderately hit areas, Lockdowns in Megalopolises that have not yet seen their death rate come down, and then there is no need for social distancing once the antibodies for the virus are found in 60% of the population and we then have 'herd immunity', I know it is actually 50%, but I think 60% is attainable before October.

But as to the title, while lockdowns in big cities are useful, I agree we can go to mere Social Distancing everywhere else.
The delta's just dont justify destroying our economy with a longer lockdown on the whole nation.

LOL. I'm rolling in laughter here.

Thank you. I knew it was someone or some organization that had no idea what they were doing and didn't have any real science background.

I didn't bother to click the link because I knew it would be a waste of time.

Wow the OP sure likes to show all of cyberspace what a total moron it is.

 

[U2Edge]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

Not the same. People were free to live and innovate. Sports were abundant and concerts. Family gatherings, etc. You want to shut all that down. That is extreme crazy talk to save those who are fat and unhealthy. Why can they not stay isolated and allow the rest of us to live?

40% of the American population is obese. Then there are those who are not obese who have other conditions. Bottom line, most of the population is NOT SAFE!

People can still live an innovate from home. In fact, 37% of the labor force is able to do their current job without leaving their house. Another 25% are engaged in "Essential Services". For the 1/3 of the labor force that is not working, they can be paid to stay at home, just like the government paid 1/3 of the labor force in the 1940s to go overseas and kill Germans and Japs.

Lockdown is necessary. The damage done is repairable. Innovation is actually happening more rapidly right now than at any time in the past 20 years. Bars, nightclubs, Church, concerts, sporting events, will have to wait maybe a few years while this passes on. All those things will eventually return though. The economy will evolve and change during this time as well. As a society, we will most likely be better off once we get through this pandemic.

#1) Link that most is not safe. LOL. 94% of deaths are to those who had at least one underlying condition.

#2) Really? Barber shops, gyms, NBA, NFL, NCAA sports, NHL, PGA, MLB --- you want to shut it all down for 5 years. Taxation would decline significantly and no more police and or fire. No more movies, sitcoms, etc. Concerts. You basically end the world to save a few people who would die anyway.

#3) Lockdown is necessary not to overwhelm the healthcare system. We have built up enough capacity to handle it.

#4) Your lack of logic is comical. I'll start the thread so people can mock you.

1. 40% of Americans are obese. That is JUST ONE underlying condition that puts people at greater risk for complications from covid-19. If you understand math, you'll realize more than 50% of Americans are at risk. 17% of the U.S. population, 56 million Americans, are age 65 and over.

2. You shut non-essential business down until the number of new cases is low enough to contain through contact tracing OR you develop a vaccine. IF that is 2 years or 3 years, you do what you have to do, because the pathogen threatens the health of everyone and threatens the economy too. Consumers won't be buying and spending time at these non-essential business's if they feel its not safe. No one wants to risk getting sick or dying just to go to a bar or football game.

3. Most of the people employed in these jobs at gyms, barber shops, sports venues don't make enough money to even pay federal tax. In any event they only account for 1/3 of the workforce. During World War II, the United States sent 1/3 of the labor force overseas to kill Germans and Japs for years. We can pay people to stay in their homes to win the war against coronavirus. In addition, during this lockdown, 60% of the labor force is still working, because 37% can work from home and 25% work in essential services. Your keeping 1/3 of the labor force off the job to save the lives of millions of people. Its more than worth and is the only way back to a healthy economy as well.

4. The lockdown is about limiting the spread of the virus so it can eventually be contained through contact tracing methods, or a vaccine is finally developed. Naturally you don't want the healthcare system to be overwhelmed, but the primary goal is defeating the pandemic, not just dealing with it.

5. Well, I guess that means your still in the 8th grade. Most 8th graders would not even engage in such behavior.

1) and? Not one expert model has the death rate above 2.2mil. You’re spinning your wheels.

2) Take out NYC and this virus is a typical flu. NYC handled this poorly. Why? We don’t know.

3) Lack of business acumen. People who own gyms and barber shops do very well. Take a business class. Your WW2 comparison is stupid.

4) Why would you limit a spread of a virus in Utah where they have fewer than 1k cases? Country can open up sans NYC.

5) I wish. It would mean I was very young. You don’t know much about the world, have zero business acumen and don’t understand math. Take an online business class since you’re home.

1. Its not just one expert model, its most models done for most countries around the world which is why lockdown is the strategy rather than going for herd immunity. Most health experts on pandemics support the lockdowns, both in this country and in 99% of countries on the planet.

2. NYC is just the first to be hit more heavily by coronavirus due to it being a the worlds largest travel hub and one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Had Trump closed the borders and banned all foreign travel in January like Taiwan did, we wouldn't be in this mess. The rest of the country which have less coronavirus cases benefit from being less traveled, having less density, and less cases at the time most lockdowns were put in place.

3. People who own gyms and barber shops do well, but most people who work at gyms and barber shops don't make enough money to pay federal tax. As far as World War II, its just an example of both terrible devastation as well as transformation of the economy and mobilizing it to do something complete different. The comparison is solid even if you don't understand it.

4. It only takes one person to infect and kill thousands without proper testing, contact tracing and isolation of the infected and potentially infected. You can only open up and area if the number of new cases is small enough to manage through testing, contact tracing and isolation of known cases and people who are potentially infected. Without those tools to deal with the pandemic, a 1,000 cases can turn into 100,000 cases in days or weeks.

5. More 8th grade rubbish. If your an adult, act like one and discuss the topic and not other posters.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is science NOT opinion.

Yeah, POLITICAL science, lol.

From the article:
"As a professional political scientist, I have analysed data from the Worldometers Coronavirus project, "

You can stop reading there.

But to continue:
"As of 6 April, seven US states had not adopted shelter-in-place orders, instead imposing social-distancing restrictions such as banning large gatherings and mandating six-foot spacing gaps and maximum customer limits inside all retail stores. "

This is an effective way of fighting the spread of COVID19. The lockdowns were supposed to be for cities with a high fatality rate, like New York, where the lockdown seemed to slow the spread, unless the death count coming down was just a coincidence, but I dont think so. The lockdown in New York and LA, for example was to flatten the curve and not overwhelm the health care system.

Why the lockdown is being applied to all counties of a state instead of only the heavily hit counties sounds like power mongering instead of science.

"the next step of my analysis was to adjust for population, using a standard deaths-per-million metric. "
But that does not adjust for population density, only total population. Siberia has 33 times the population of Rhode Island, but nowhere near the population density or vulnerability to COVID19.


The next section the author basically throws in the towel for his thesis in his own article.

"The ‘p-value’ for the variable representing strategy was 0.94 when it was regressed against the deaths metric, which means there is a 94 per cent chance that any relationship between the different measures and Covid-19 deaths was the result of pure random chance.​

​

The only variable to be statistically significant in terms of cases and deaths was population (p=0.006 and 0.021 respectively). Across the US states, each increase in the population of 100,000 correlated with 1,779 additional Covid-19 cases, even with multiple other factors adjusted for. Large, densely populated areas are more likely to struggle with Covid-19, no matter what response strategy they adopt – although erring on the side of caution might make sense for global megacities such as New York and Chicago.​

I agree with him there, and I think this should be the basis for our national Freedom Day.
Keep Social Distancing in moderately hit areas, Lockdowns in Megalopolises that have not yet seen their death rate come down, and then there is no need for social distancing once the antibodies for the virus are found in 60% of the population and we then have 'herd immunity', I know it is actually 50%, but I think 60% is attainable before October.

But as to the title, while lockdowns in big cities are useful, I agree we can go to mere Social Distancing everywhere else.
The delta's just dont justify destroying our economy with a longer lockdown on the whole nation.

LOL. I'm rolling in laughter here.

Thank you. I knew it was someone or some organization that had no idea what they were doing and didn't have any real science background.

I didn't bother to click the link because I knew it would be a waste of time.

Wow the OP sure likes to show all of cyberspace what a total moron it is.

Sigh... you’re a failed accountant.
Stop pretending you’re a SME on the COVID-19

 

[Dana7360]

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!

Depends on what our sheltering in place was supposed to accomplish.

If we sheltered in place:

1) So as to give modern medicine time to find a treatment,

2) To allow our hospitals to procure enough PPE and equipment, test kits, and get supply chains built up

3) To reduce the number of people infected from the initial exposures, so that we did not overwhelm hospital staff and facilities.

Then I think the shelter in place worked to some extent. We probably allowed it to go on too long. We really need to get back to work, albeit still observing mitigation practices.

The article was correct, we allowed a select few doctors, high on hubris, to cite really bad data, and grossly exaggerate the threat, the deaths and the spread of the infection. We also allowed politicians to get high on the feeling of power, to order their citizens around like year old toddlers, and allowed other politicians to loot the treasury.

^^^THIS^^^

Spiked Magazine


Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.




Share:

RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate Spiked Magazine Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that mostly favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed a fact check as well as publishing misleading scientific information.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 33/180
[...]

Funded by / Ownership
Spiked is owned by Spiked Limited, which is a company owned by Frank Furedi and Jennie Bristow. Funding has come from the Charles Koch Foundation and currently revenue is generated through donations and onsite advertising.

Spiked Magazine - Media Bias/Fact Check

^^^ THAT ^^^

LOL. I'm rolling in laughter here.

Thank you.

The koch foundation. I knew it was from far right extremist site.

These people love to show all of cyberspace just what downright morons they are on a daily basis.

I used to try to be polite to these morons but they are killing people with their moronic ideas and lies. It's not funny. People are dying.

They are the absolutely the most stupid people I've ever encountered in my life.

 

[U2Edge]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

Damn right on purpose. A purpose that saves MILLIONS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. About 1/3 of the workforce is not working. About the same number that were drafted during World War II and sent overseas to kill Germans and Japs. If the government can send 1/3 of the workforce overseas to kill Germans and Japs in the 1940s, in can pay 1/3 of the workforce to STAY HOME in the 2020s.

Fact, is, most people support what I believe doing and its what 99% of governments around the world are doing. Most people don't support what you believe doing and 99% of governments are not following what you think should be done.

You would be killing millions if you forced isolation for FIVE YEARS!!! Again why do we not isolate during every flu season? NO ONE SUPPORTS A FIVE YEAR LOCKDOWN. Sans you. Since you're insane.

Seasonal flu can be overcome with the flu shot. Its less deadly, and less transmissible than coronavirus. Those three reasons are why we don't lock down for seasonal flu.

People will support the lockdown as long as it takes to make the environment safe for business. As long as the environment is NOT SAFE for business as usual, people will stay home regardless of who opens up.

Flu shots are 45% effective. 99% of COVID patients have mild cold symptoms or no symptoms. You’re such a coward.

The effectiveness rate in terms of getting sick from flu is sometimes as low as 45%. But when it comes to preventing death from seasonal flu, the effectiveness is well above 90%. Right now, 5% of people who infected with Covid-19 die. At least 20% are hospitalized.

The name calling is not mature or adult behavior, and only detracts from your point of view.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

Not the same. People were free to live and innovate. Sports were abundant and concerts. Family gatherings, etc. You want to shut all that down. That is extreme crazy talk to save those who are fat and unhealthy. Why can they not stay isolated and allow the rest of us to live?

40% of the American population is obese. Then there are those who are not obese who have other conditions. Bottom line, most of the population is NOT SAFE!

People can still live an innovate from home. In fact, 37% of the labor force is able to do their current job without leaving their house. Another 25% are engaged in "Essential Services". For the 1/3 of the labor force that is not working, they can be paid to stay at home, just like the government paid 1/3 of the labor force in the 1940s to go overseas and kill Germans and Japs.

Lockdown is necessary. The damage done is repairable. Innovation is actually happening more rapidly right now than at any time in the past 20 years. Bars, nightclubs, Church, concerts, sporting events, will have to wait maybe a few years while this passes on. All those things will eventually return though. The economy will evolve and change during this time as well. As a society, we will most likely be better off once we get through this pandemic.

#1) Link that most is not safe. LOL. 94% of deaths are to those who had at least one underlying condition.

#2) Really? Barber shops, gyms, NBA, NFL, NCAA sports, NHL, PGA, MLB --- you want to shut it all down for 5 years. Taxation would decline significantly and no more police and or fire. No more movies, sitcoms, etc. Concerts. You basically end the world to save a few people who would die anyway.

#3) Lockdown is necessary not to overwhelm the healthcare system. We have built up enough capacity to handle it.

#4) Your lack of logic is comical. I'll start the thread so people can mock you.

1. 40% of Americans are obese. That is JUST ONE underlying condition that puts people at greater risk for complications from covid-19. If you understand math, you'll realize more than 50% of Americans are at risk. 17% of the U.S. population, 56 million Americans, are age 65 and over.

2. You shut non-essential business down until the number of new cases is low enough to contain through contact tracing OR you develop a vaccine. IF that is 2 years or 3 years, you do what you have to do, because the pathogen threatens the health of everyone and threatens the economy too. Consumers won't be buying and spending time at these non-essential business's if they feel its not safe. No one wants to risk getting sick or dying just to go to a bar or football game.

3. Most of the people employed in these jobs at gyms, barber shops, sports venues don't make enough money to even pay federal tax. In any event they only account for 1/3 of the workforce. During World War II, the United States sent 1/3 of the labor force overseas to kill Germans and Japs for years. We can pay people to stay in their homes to win the war against coronavirus. In addition, during this lockdown, 60% of the labor force is still working, because 37% can work from home and 25% work in essential services. Your keeping 1/3 of the labor force off the job to save the lives of millions of people. Its more than worth and is the only way back to a healthy economy as well.

4. The lockdown is about limiting the spread of the virus so it can eventually be contained through contact tracing methods, or a vaccine is finally developed. Naturally you don't want the healthcare system to be overwhelmed, but the primary goal is defeating the pandemic, not just dealing with it.

5. Well, I guess that means your still in the 8th grade. Most 8th graders would not even engage in such behavior.

1) and? Not one expert model has the death rate above 2.2mil. You’re spinning your wheels.

2) Take out NYC and this virus is a typical flu. NYC handled this poorly. Why? We don’t know.

3) Lack of business acumen. People who own gyms and barber shops do very well. Take a business class. Your WW2 comparison is stupid.

4) Why would you limit a spread of a virus in Utah where they have fewer than 1k cases? Country can open up sans NYC.

5) I wish. It would mean I was very young. You don’t know much about the world, have zero business acumen and don’t understand math. Take an online business class since you’re home.

1. Its not just one expert model, its most models done for most countries around the world which is why lockdown is the strategy rather than going for herd immunity. Most health experts on pandemics support the lockdowns, both in this country and in 99% of countries on the planet.

2. NYC is just the first to be hit more heavily by coronavirus due to it being a the worlds largest travel hub and one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Had Trump closed the borders and banned all foreign travel in January like Taiwan did, we wouldn't be in this mess. The rest of the country which have less coronavirus cases benefit from being less traveled, having less density, and less cases at the time most lockdowns were put in place.

3. People who own gyms and barber shops do well, but most people who work at gyms and barber shops don't make enough money to pay federal tax. As far as World War II, its just an example of both terrible devastation as well as transformation of the economy and mobilizing it to do something complete different. The comparison is solid even if you don't understand it.

4. It only takes one person to infect and kill thousands without proper testing, contact tracing and isolation of the infected and potentially infected. You can only open up and area if the number of new cases is small enough to manage through testing, contact tracing and isolation of known cases and people who are potentially infected. Without those tools to deal with the pandemic, a 1,000 cases can turn into 100,000 cases in days or weeks.

5. More 8th grade rubbish. If your an adult, act like one and discuss the topic and not other posters.

1) We are talking about the US. Show one model where more than 1% of the population dies.

2) LAX is huge and they have a fraction of the cases? Tokyo does too. How do you explain that?

3) So you want to close every barber shop and gym? How about hair salons? My wife pays $250 per haircut and such. Her hair dresser easily cleared $150k per yr. Again you show your lack of business acumen.

4) Kill 1000s LOL. Same is true for the Flu. Why don’t we social distance and lockdown every flu season?

 

[U2Edge]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

Damn right on purpose. A purpose that saves MILLIONS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. About 1/3 of the workforce is not working. About the same number that were drafted during World War II and sent overseas to kill Germans and Japs. If the government can send 1/3 of the workforce overseas to kill Germans and Japs in the 1940s, in can pay 1/3 of the workforce to STAY HOME in the 2020s.

Fact, is, most people support what I believe doing and its what 99% of governments around the world are doing. Most people don't support what you believe doing and 99% of governments are not following what you think should be done.

You're a dumbass

Tens of thousands descend on beaches amid Southern California heat wave

Lifeguards in Huntington and Newport Beach say more than 50,000 people flocked to their beaches Friday.

www.cbsnews.com

You're behaving like a child.

 

[U2Edge]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

Damn right on purpose. A purpose that saves MILLIONS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. About 1/3 of the workforce is not working. About the same number that were drafted during World War II and sent overseas to kill Germans and Japs. If the government can send 1/3 of the workforce overseas to kill Germans and Japs in the 1940s, in can pay 1/3 of the workforce to STAY HOME in the 2020s.

Fact, is, most people support what I believe doing and its what 99% of governments around the world are doing. Most people don't support what you believe doing and 99% of governments are not following what you think should be done.

In the very near term they support it, again, because they've been thrown a near term bone to keep them afloat. Let's gauge that when you let them know THEY are also on the list to lose their jobs and everything they've worked their entire lives for and ending up in the bread line when that gravy train runs out, and then extrapolate that out 3-5 years when the finacial system has collapsed, demand has collapsed further and those with jobs are in the minoruty and even those people are taking pay cuts and unable to keep themselves afloat.

Let's toss the millions dead from starvation and thrown into poverty and maybe a war or some good old ethnic cleansing breaks out as millions more are starving and we'll see what that plan looks like at that point.

Countries and states are already reopening areas and, as people realize it can be done, it will continue. Thank heavens most of the world can do simple math and realize that despite the risks, we have to get our economies going again.

Carry on, as I'm sure you will. We'll continue to disagree, I have no doubt, so we're just going in circles at this point I think. Why you pulled me back into this discussion in any case I have no idea. If you thought you had something new with this Hiroshima epiphany you were sadly mistaken.

Sorry, but your in the minority in terms of what to do. My examples and Comparisons to World War II and what can be done or sound and historically accurate. Trump will be defeated in November and the Democrats will keep the House and take back the Senate. Then finally the U.S. government and U.S. policy can get back on a sound footing where SCIENCE and the SCIENCE of dealing with pandemics is how we decide what to do, rather than foolish and unsubstantiated ideas about the cost of keeping non-essential business closed down.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

Damn right on purpose. A purpose that saves MILLIONS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. About 1/3 of the workforce is not working. About the same number that were drafted during World War II and sent overseas to kill Germans and Japs. If the government can send 1/3 of the workforce overseas to kill Germans and Japs in the 1940s, in can pay 1/3 of the workforce to STAY HOME in the 2020s.

Fact, is, most people support what I believe doing and its what 99% of governments around the world are doing. Most people don't support what you believe doing and 99% of governments are not following what you think should be done.

You're a dumbass

Tens of thousands descend on beaches amid Southern California heat wave

Lifeguards in Huntington and Newport Beach say more than 50,000 people flocked to their beaches Friday.

www.cbsnews.com

You're behaving like a child.

You post like a child. We have 15 deaths per 100kn people. The more infected the greater and faster the herd immunity. You do not possess any business, mathematical or scientific acumen. You live on emotion. You’re a moron. Educate yourself and then get back to me. You keep bringing up WW2. You do realize that we could have sat home and not lost any soldiers instead we stormed the beaches of Normandy. We are in a war let us out and develop herd immunity. Those feeling unsafe may stay locked down. Problem solved. The more infected the better.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

Damn right on purpose. A purpose that saves MILLIONS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. About 1/3 of the workforce is not working. About the same number that were drafted during World War II and sent overseas to kill Germans and Japs. If the government can send 1/3 of the workforce overseas to kill Germans and Japs in the 1940s, in can pay 1/3 of the workforce to STAY HOME in the 2020s.

Fact, is, most people support what I believe doing and its what 99% of governments around the world are doing. Most people don't support what you believe doing and 99% of governments are not following what you think should be done.

In the very near term they support it, again, because they've been thrown a near term bone to keep them afloat. Let's gauge that when you let them know THEY are also on the list to lose their jobs and everything they've worked their entire lives for and ending up in the bread line when that gravy train runs out, and then extrapolate that out 3-5 years when the finacial system has collapsed, demand has collapsed further and those with jobs are in the minoruty and even those people are taking pay cuts and unable to keep themselves afloat.

Let's toss the millions dead from starvation and thrown into poverty and maybe a war or some good old ethnic cleansing breaks out as millions more are starving and we'll see what that plan looks like at that point.

Countries and states are already reopening areas and, as people realize it can be done, it will continue. Thank heavens most of the world can do simple math and realize that despite the risks, we have to get our economies going again.

Carry on, as I'm sure you will. We'll continue to disagree, I have no doubt, so we're just going in circles at this point I think. Why you pulled me back into this discussion in any case I have no idea. If you thought you had something new with this Hiroshima epiphany you were sadly mistaken.

Sorry, but your in the minority in terms of what to do. My examples and Comparisons to World War II and what can be done or sound and historically accurate. Trump will be defeated in November and the Democrats will keep the House and take back the Senate. Then finally the U.S. government and U.S. policy can get back on a sound footing where SCIENCE and the SCIENCE of dealing with pandemics is how we decide what to do, rather than foolish and unsubstantiated ideas about the cost of keeping non-essential business closed down.

Just because you keep saying that doesn’t make it so. I dedicated a thread to this and it makes you look stupid.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

Damn right on purpose. A purpose that saves MILLIONS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. About 1/3 of the workforce is not working. About the same number that were drafted during World War II and sent overseas to kill Germans and Japs. If the government can send 1/3 of the workforce overseas to kill Germans and Japs in the 1940s, in can pay 1/3 of the workforce to STAY HOME in the 2020s.

Fact, is, most people support what I believe doing and its what 99% of governments around the world are doing. Most people don't support what you believe doing and 99% of governments are not following what you think should be done.

In the very near term they support it, again, because they've been thrown a near term bone to keep them afloat. Let's gauge that when you let them know THEY are also on the list to lose their jobs and everything they've worked their entire lives for and ending up in the bread line when that gravy train runs out, and then extrapolate that out 3-5 years when the finacial system has collapsed, demand has collapsed further and those with jobs are in the minoruty and even those people are taking pay cuts and unable to keep themselves afloat.

Let's toss the millions dead from starvation and thrown into poverty and maybe a war or some good old ethnic cleansing breaks out as millions more are starving and we'll see what that plan looks like at that point.

Countries and states are already reopening areas and, as people realize it can be done, it will continue. Thank heavens most of the world can do simple math and realize that despite the risks, we have to get our economies going again.

Carry on, as I'm sure you will. We'll continue to disagree, I have no doubt, so we're just going in circles at this point I think. Why you pulled me back into this discussion in any case I have no idea. If you thought you had something new with this Hiroshima epiphany you were sadly mistaken.

Sorry, but your in the minority in terms of what to do. My examples and Comparisons to World War II and what can be done or sound and historically accurate. Trump will be defeated in November and the Democrats will keep the House and take back the Senate. Then finally the U.S. government and U.S. policy can get back on a sound footing where SCIENCE and the SCIENCE of dealing with pandemics is how we decide what to do, rather than foolish and unsubstantiated ideas about the cost of keeping non-essential business closed down.

Reopen the Economy

I believe we need to reopen ASAP. We know the risks. Barbershops, gyms, restaurants, hotels, etc. are dying. We don't close the economy during every flu season we should not close it now. The brief shutdown has allowed our hospitals to be ready for the virus. We have ventilators, masks and...

www.usmessageboard.com

Feel free to opine

 

[XponentialChaos]

5) I wish. It would mean I was very young. You don’t know much about the world, have zero business acumen and don’t understand math. Take an online business class since you’re home.

Which part of his math is incorrect? Be specific please.

We can argue what should or shouldn't be done, but math isn't debatable, or at least shouldn't be.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

% of COVID patients have mild cold symptoms or no symptoms.

Well you just pulled that right out of yer ass....

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

5) I wish. It would mean I was very young. You don’t know much about the world, have zero business acumen and don’t understand math. Take an online business class since you’re home.

Which part of his math is incorrect? Be specific please.

We can argue what should or shouldn't be done, but math isn't debatable, or at least shouldn't be.

The part where not one scientist or modeler predicted a 1% death rate and that we should be locked down for 5 yrs.

Right now we have 15 deaths for every 100k people living in the US. Drops to 9 if you take out NYC.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

% of COVID patients have mild cold symptoms or no symptoms.

Well you just pulled that right out of yer ass....

Look it up cupcake. Right now we have 15 deaths for every 100k people. Take out NYC and it’s 9. You just keep hiding under that bed.

Reopen the Economy

I believe we need to reopen ASAP. We know the risks. Barbershops, gyms, restaurants, hotels, etc. are dying. We don't close the economy during every flu season we should not close it now. The brief shutdown has allowed our hospitals to be ready for the virus. We have ventilators, masks and...

www.usmessageboard.com

feel free to opine here

 

[KGB]

Appears all it did was saddle the taxpayer with a couple of trillion dollars more debt. ...

there’s that. I do believe it helped the medical community out, but that reasoning is fast becoming obsolete with each passing day.

Exactly, and I don't see how locking down States, producing another 10 million or more unemployed, and causing thousands more business to go bankrupt, and States governments themselves going bankrupt, is going to help the nation.

We could probably do almost the same thing in this shelter-in-place lockdown, if we just went out and did our business in public, as long as we observe mitigation practices. Sheltering in-house is nothing but a mitigation practice. It does nothing to cure the virus it does nothing to end virus it does nothing but prolong the effects of the virus

FALSE! lockdowns deprive the virus of its resources or oxygen. The virus is like a fire, it needs oxygen to keep burning. In this case oxygen is people. So when you isolate healthy people from those that have the virus, the virus dies. The virus needs human hosts to survive. Deprive it of human hosts, it dies.

The damage to the economy is minimal given that 37% of the labor force can work from home and another 25% are involved in essential services. The economy will take a hit, but it can be rebuilt. Even Hiroshima that was nuked on August 6, 1945 was fully rebuilt and had a larger population by 1958. If Hiroshima can recover from being nuked, the United States can recover from 30 million people being jobless for a few years.

Tell that to those 30 million people. The last time we had that many out of work was the Great Depression.

 

[KGB]

Protect the vulnerable, develop the herd immunity. Only way out and has been from the beginning.

Sweden resisted a lockdown, and its capital Stockholm is expected to reach 'herd immunity' in weeks

Sweden went against the grain by keeping public life as unrestricted as possible when the coronavirus hit. Now, it says its strategy appears to be working.

www.cnbc.com

Meanwhile we're arresting people in parks and hiding like rats and it is, of course, way more widespread than people thought, even with all of these measures here.

At a cost to Sweden so far of 192 deaths/million population compared to the US at 144/million.
So, are you volunteering to get infected?

Yes and they'll be largely done while we are still hiding and trying to stop something we cannot, while our death toll will likely be spread over a longer time period as we have multiple waves of this.

And spare me the BS leading question/false choice nonsense. I've been working right through this with very few changes in my life and nobody, including Sweden, is advocating not taking reasonable precautions. This is NOT an either or choice between total lockdown and slobbering all over each other at every opportunity while making no effort to slow transmission and protect the vulnerable- and never has been.

And the point is, for those too myopic to realize this, that there are other strategies out there that have been employed, and other nations that are further along the timeline than we are. As those results start to become available it makes sense and is necessary to assess them to determine the best path forward for us.

Which country has the best results in protecting it population from coronavirus? The Answer TAIWAN! Only 6 deaths in TAIWAN. TAIWAN is the gold standard in protecting its population. Trump's failure is measured by the number of deaths Taiwan has vs. the United States.

Sweden has the 9th highest death rate per capita in the world from coronavirus. Why would anyone follow that example for protecting its population. There are only 8 other countries that are dying at a greater rate than Sweden from coronavirus.

Because you're only delaying the inevitable. You can get the virus now or 6 months from now.

Well, then your claiming that its inevitable that 5 million Americans will die from the virus and we should not do anything.

South Korea is a country of 50 million people, but has less than 11,000 infections. Tell me, when will the other 49,989,000 people get the virus?

TAIWAN is a country of 24 million people with only 429 infections. Tell me when the other 23,999,571 people will be getting the virus in TAIWAN? Realize TAIWAN often goes several days without any new infections at all. Today, the whole country had ONE new infection.

Did everyone get the 1918 Spanish Flu? NOPE. Did the few cities that practiced social distancing and shutdown business's suffer less death and illness? YEP!

NOTHING is inevitable when it comes to a virus and societies fight against it. People can make a difference and save lives through their actions. That was the lesson of the 1918 pandemic!

This is not an either-or scenario.

I know you want to run around with your hair perpetually on fire and think the entire nation should hide until the advent of some medical advance that frees us from bondage.

The rest of us would rather plan an actual way out of this mess. If that is reasonable social distancing, protecting the at risk and managing spikes, more widespread antibody testing, fine and I think that's where we are headed.

No matter what, there will be risks. Everyone acknowledges that there is no safe path and it sucks. States are already running out of money and we're a couple of months in. Thats only going to get worse, not better, until we take a step back and reassess based on what we are learning here and from other countries that have adapted different strategies and adapt an approach here that gets people back to work as soon as possible while protecting the vulnerable to the greatest degree possible.

I don't think you realize how much of the population in the United States is vulnerable. 40% of the U.S. population is obese. Nearly 50% have hypertension or pre-hypertension which is another underlying risk factor.

The lockdown economic damage is minimal compared to the death and destruction that would be caused by letting the virus run rampant. There is NO MIDDLEGROUND! The virus is like a FIRE, it needs oxygen to survive. The oxygen in this case is PEOPLE. You kill this thing by keeping people ISOLATED from each other.

You can lockdown for 3 years or 5 years if needed, the economic damage would be minimal and repairable compared to say being NUKED. Hiroshima was nuked on August 6, 1945, but the city was fully rebuilt by 1958 and had a larger population in 1958 than in 1945.

The economic damage is bad, but its certainly not as bad as what Hiroshima went through. The economic damage can be repaired. But you can't bring someone back to life who has died from covid-19.

In terms of protecting the vulnerable, we have already failed to protect old people in nursing homes. The loss of life in nursing homes has been terrible. You risk killing more vulnerable people by reopening and will only bring another lockdown within a couple of months.

The vast majority of Americans support the lockdown. Most Americans are also not going to suddenly become customers at these non-essential business's you want to reopen. Consumers will not come out to spend until it is SAFE. So opening your business won't solve the economic problem. In fact, it may just put people further in the hole. The cost of opening up but getting no customers for business would be a WORSE situation than staying locked down.

Sure, lets lockdown for 3-5 years.

Totally feasible, and your supporting argument is that a city rebuilt after an atomic bomb detonation.

I honestly have nothing to say to that that wouldn't be so downright dickish that your ancestors would be insulted, so I think I'll pass. Go right ahead and believe that if you'd like.

Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Nearly every city destroyed, millions dead. Yet, both countries recovered from those tragedies by 1960.

Is the devastation of 3 years under lockdown get you to the place where Germany and Japan were in the Summer of 1945? Not even close.

37% of the labor force is able to work from home. 25% of the labor force is engaged in essential services. So a little over 60% of the labor force is still at work under this lockdown.

Sure, let's truck along with a higher unemployment rate than the great depression for 3-5 years. It'll be fine.

The UN is already warning that hundreds of thousands of children may die THIS YEAR because of the economic downturn. Lets extend to 5 and see how many we can rack up, cause Hiroshima rebuilt. M'kay.

I don't know where you come up with this silly crap, but, again believe it if you like.

Do you even understand what happened to Germany and Japan in World War II? Do you understand where both countries were at in the summer of 1945. If Germany and Japan can survive and rebuild from the state they were in, in 1945, a United States lockdown where 60% of the population is still working will be a picnic by comparison.

You can repair the economic damage. You can't bring someone back to life who has physically died of covid-19. Most Americans understand that and that's why most Americans agree with ME, rather than YOU.

If you think most Americans think we can, or should, do this for 3-5 years you're crazier than I thought.

The government threw a few bucks around to keep people afloat in the near term to minimize near term effect and they've minimized blowback as a result, and most people are not feeling the pain-yet. The government cannot do that for 3-5 years.

We'll see what "most americans" think in 6 months when the recession deepens, more people lose their jobs, even those that can work at home, when they're getting tossed out of their homes and realize that we havent stopped this anyhow.

Your analysis is so utterly flawed and without any consideration of secondary consequences or how this would unfold over that type of timespan that 'absurd' doesn't even come close.

Chaos, poverty and starvation will consume major portions if the globe effecting tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people. It is already happening 2-3 months in. You clearly have a pretty loose grip on reality if you think this won't get worse

Believe what you want, again. Honestly I don't care what your deranged logic is telling you, but I do know that it isn't even logic.

Hiroshima did it. Countries rebuilt. Lets do that again, but on purpose. Good grief.

Damn right on purpose. A purpose that saves MILLIONS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES. About 1/3 of the workforce is not working. About the same number that were drafted during World War II and sent overseas to kill Germans and Japs. If the government can send 1/3 of the workforce overseas to kill Germans and Japs in the 1940s, in can pay 1/3 of the workforce to STAY HOME in the 2020s.

Fact, is, most people support what I believe doing and its what 99% of governments around the world are doing. Most people don't support what you believe doing and 99% of governments are not following what you think should be done.

You would be killing millions if you forced isolation for FIVE YEARS!!! Again why do we not isolate during every flu season? NO ONE SUPPORTS A FIVE YEAR LOCKDOWN. Sans you. Since you're insane.

Seasonal flu can be overcome with the flu shot. Its less deadly, and less transmissible than coronavirus. Those three reasons are why we don't lock down for seasonal flu.

People will support the lockdown as long as it takes to make the environment safe for business. As long as the environment is NOT SAFE for business as usual, people will stay home regardless of who opens up.

Flu shots are 45% effective. 99% of COVID patients have mild cold symptoms or no symptoms. You’re such a coward.

dude, these lefties are morons. You are arguing with yourself. Trying to talk sense to them is like arguing altruism with a pissed off rhino...

 

[XponentialChaos]

4) Kill 1000s LOL. Same is true for the Flu. Why don’t we social distance and lockdown every flu season?

You're still trying to compare this to the flu?

Flu season wipes out an average of 1,330 people in New Jersey each year. Covid-19 killed more than that in New Jersey in the last 5 days.

The reason for the different reaction between flu and coronavirus is obviously due to the differences in potential death rates.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

4) Kill 1000s LOL. Same is true for the Flu. Why don’t we social distance and lockdown every flu season?

You're still trying to compare this to the flu?

Flu season wipes out an average of 1,330 people in New Jersey each year. Covid-19 killed more than that in New Jersey in the last 5 days.

The reason for the different reaction between flu and coronavirus is obviously due to the differences in potential death rates.

Typical flu season 30-50k die. Take out NYC, which is an outlier we have the same for this. 94% had at least one underlying condition. Keep those at risk home and open it up for the rest of us. Not my fault some people are weak. I had COVID-19. Flu is much worse.