General Corona virus updates

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4070
  • Start date Start date
ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
I apologize. Allow me to rephrase, it's been pointed out that we have 2 options and one of them is completely unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Yet, we don't have 2 options because we've seen it's possible to do a contact and trace programs with lockdowns to seriously limit the spread. Your argument that we shouldn't wear masks because we can't do anything to slow the spread doesn't hold water.
 
Zeph said:
Yet, we don't have 2 options because we've seen it's possible to do a contact and trace programs with lockdowns to seriously limit the spread. Your argument that we shouldn't wear masks because we can't do anything to slow the spread doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the WHO also said healthy people shouldn't wear masks.
 
Sweet my Doobie Brothers concert has been rescheduled.

til fucking Oct 2021!

Ridiculous they don’t just give refunds and put tickets back on sale in a year.
 
Zeph said:
Yet, we don't have 2 options because we've seen it's possible to do a contact and trace programs with lockdowns to seriously limit the spread. Your argument that we shouldn't wear masks because we can't do anything to slow the spread doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

I didn't make that argument. My concern is the spread moving too slowly. At the current pace were going to continue starving people until 2022.
 
Last edited:
Speculation that veterans are being used as guinea pigs:
popular.info

Veterans as guinea pigs

The Trump administration was unprepared for a pandemic and unresponsive when the coronavirus came to the United States.
popular.info popular.info

There seem to still be unanswered questions. The article makes it sound like that is on purpose.
 
ThatOneDude said:
www.businessinsider.com

WHO says there is no need for healthy people to wear face masks, days after the CDC told all Americans to cover their faces

Until June 5, the WHO maintained that face masks weren't a solid defense for healthy people and could lead to user error that heightens their risk.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

Interesting article.
Click to expand...

They say that because of a shortage of masks still in some areas.

WHO says masks should be saved for healthcare workers, caretakers, and sick people — everyone else should just stay home

There's some evidence that caretakers of infected people can protect their health by wearing masks, the WHO guidance said, but "there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19."

So....a mask helps when you are caring for someone who has it but not in public? I can't make sense of that.
 
Zeph said:
So your argument is we should help the spread and infect more people? Intentionally.
Click to expand...

Lol, if it helps you sleep at night, sure phrase in the most inflammatory way possible. If you want to know what I actually think we should do it would be to look at the statisitics, recognize who's likely to be killed, who's likely to breeze through, assess how many of those deaths were actually a result of hospitals being overwhelmed, or due to mistreatment due to lack of information at the time and then decide who needs to be protected, and who doesn't. Locking everyone in their homes, which they're about to be evicted from, even though they aren't likely to have an adverse reaction isn't an appropriate measure to take.

I also found this bit of information interesting:

For COVID-19, data to date suggest that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infection, requiring oxygen and 5% are critical infections, requiring ventilation.
Click to expand...
 
ConorMcGregorsBeard said:
Lol, if it helps you sleep at night, sure phrase in the most inflammatory way possible. If you want to know what I actually think we should do it would be to look at the statisitics, recognize who's likely to be killed, who's likely to breeze through, assess how many of those deaths were actually a result of hospitals being overwhelmed, or due to mistreatment due to lack of information at the time and then decide who needs to be protected, and who doesn't. Locking everyone in their homes, which they're about to be evicted from, even though they aren't likely to have an adverse reaction isn't an appropriate measure to take.

I also found this bit of information interesting:
Click to expand...
No one is saying lock everyone in their homes indefinitely. You have a lockdown until there is a low number of new daily cases and then you reopen with social distancing and masks to limit spread until there is a vaccine. When there is a local outbreak you do contact tracing and local lockdowns. People suffering economically through this is a choice of their government. It doesn't need to happen except for ideological reasons and not wanting to show other ways to go about things.
 
g5g9zwxv6b151.jpg
 
Zeph said:
No one is saying lock everyone in their homes indefinitely. You have a lockdown until there is a low number of new daily cases and then you reopen with social distancing and masks to limit spread until there is a vaccine. When there is a local outbreak you do contact tracing and local lockdowns. People suffering economically through this is a choice of their government. It doesn't need to happen except for ideological reasons and not wanting to show other ways to go about things.
Click to expand...

So you might not realize it, but your post of what we should be doing is bookended by sentences of what's actually going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top