Welcome to Thunderdome

Citation needed.

GORDON wrote: Citation needed.

You said something about not wanting to see the bad news and/or if this was serious, so I stopped posting anything. But looks like it only got overwhelming in NYC + Detroit, stateside, since we shut a bunch of stuff down.

Sure, ok. Cities with high population density, had high-population-density problems.

I said from the beginning it may be serious, but the threat was overblown, compared to our response to it. All the damage we're living with today, going forward, was our response to the virus, and not the virus itself.

I said very early on that real numbers would never be accurate because of asymptomatic carriers, and I was right. I even got challenged, IIRC. Something about the influenza virus.

I said a lockdown wouldn't eradicate it, as there's no "vaccine" in sight, as such things usually take 18 months minimum to see government approval. I was right.

I admitted "slowing it down may flatten the curve," but we can't stay shut down forever, and we're all going to take a turn one way or another. So far I'm looking right.

I said the American healthcare system isn't Italy's, and we won't be overwhelmed by a lack of ventilators. I said my metric for admitting I was wrong would be when I see pictures of the dead in the streets, with no hospital beds. This would prove me wrong. There's no way the media wouldn't blast these pics in an election year. Aside from a few cities, and a few old age homes where people drop off their elderly in order to forget them, I was right. The vast majority of the country did not have capacity issues. Sucks to live in cities, but I've always said that.

Staged military hospital ships weren't needed. Army and FEMA tents deployed in hospital parking lots weren't needed.

I'd say the most successful step we took in "slowing it down," for what that was worth, was closing the schools. Schools have always been massive disease vectors, for anything. Everything else was marginal. People didn't 100% lock down. Grocery stores didn't disinfect that peanut butter jar that was picked up, considered, then put back on the shelf. Spring break happened. People licked doorknobs on purpose. I'm pretty sure I predicted all of that, as well. I think I said, "Destroying the economy won't stop the virus." I was right.

I wrote a big thing comparing an economic shutdown today, and the Great Depression. I compared numbers, accounted for modern day social safety nets that didn't exist in 1930, and still predicted high unemployment and a dire outcome. So far, I've been right.

Everyone makes their final opinions based on numbers tested, infection rates, death counts. Then the vast majority of people aren't tested, and those that are have a high enough error rate that it seems to be enough to shoot down selected arguments about infection rates.

Go ahead and nitpick. I think overall, I've been more right than wrong about most predictions, on this subject.

I guess the main rebuttal will be, "Well I know someone who died from it so fuck you."

GORDON wrote: I guess the main rebuttal will be, "Well I know someone who died from it so fuck you."

I know three, so fuck you. No, but seriously, I do know three, no shit.

I do agree that shutting schools down was a key factor because they are fucking germ distribution centers. Kids are fucking gross.

After that though, we really have no idea. They don't know if this thing spread from people with/without symptoms, they think surface transmission was piss poor, maybe it was transmitted through air effectively, and most of the testing for it was sketchy at best. I've seen 40-60% effectiveness on the tests, so who knows what the actual numbers were? Some doctor on the Today show was CONFIRMED to have it, via actual lab work, but every test he used (that was also used on the public) came up negative.

So really nobody on either side can declare victory. I mean they can, but the truth is unknown.

Shutdowns saved 3M lives in Europe, according to this study.

Meanwhile, a separate study by University of California, Berkeley, analysed the impact of lockdowns in China, South Korea, Iran, France and the US.

Their report, also in Nature, says lockdown prevented 530 million infections in those countries.

Just before lockdowns were introduced, they said cases were doubling every two days.

Dr Solomon Hsiang, one of the researchers, said coronavirus had been a "real human tragedy" but the global action to stop the spread of the virus had "saved more lives, in a shorter period of time, than ever before".

So... what's a few million lives worth? Rough ballpark says $1M each based on GDP losses, +/-.

Good. Great. Well done. I have no reason to doubt their speculative accuracy.

TheCatt wrote:

TheCatt wrote: Asymptomatic spreading is probably rare.

Or, it's responsible for a bunch of cases.

And they walked it back

Was talking to someone today... "This is basically just like the flu; Everyone who dies from it was going to die anyway"

That person is a doctor. Who is married to a doctor.

I mean, technically we're all going to die...

TheCatt wrote: I mean, technically we're all going to die...

From the moment you're born you start the inevitable journey to death.

I'm a doctor.

No that's not true. If we isolate and never leave home, we live forever.

thibodeaux wrote: I'm a doctor.

A real doctor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FccYqcAL4FM

People are dumb.

I would like to see overall death rates for all causes, this year compared to last.

In other words "Catt, look up. . . .. . . for me".

Cakedaddy wrote: In other words "Catt, look up. . . .. . . for me".

Nah. I don't care, much. I just wonder if that first woman in the video was right, or not.

All the charts I've seen show reported deaths (total) being way up from last year.

Cakedaddy wrote: All the charts I've seen show reported deaths (total) being way up from last year.

This is truth. And I already posted one earlier in this thread.

TheCatt wrote:

Cakedaddy wrote: All the charts I've seen show reported deaths (total) being way up from last year.

This is truth. And I already posted one earlier in this thread.

I thought so too, but could not find it. It was probably a link to it as apposed to a graphic in the post.

Also, if memory serves, it talked about non-covid deaths being way up. So even if you removed all of the covid deaths, deaths were still way up.

Here another link: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covi ... deaths.htm

That one is more up to date than the prior one I had posted