And Texas Caves In

westernrvparkowner wrote:
Extreme social distancing may not be as effective as advertised. Take a look at two states that took different approaches, California and Texas. California was one of the first states to take aggressive social distancing measures. Texas was one of the last, and to date has taken a more lax approach to both rules and enforcement. Both states are among the most populous, have large, international cities and have long stretches of an international border as well as a major maritime industry leading to much transient international travel. California has a population of nearly 40 million and Texas about 30 million. To date California has 20,191 confirmed cases and Texas has 11,329. That means one out of every 1981 Californians were infected, yet only one out of every 2648 Texans suffered the same fate despite not having statewide stay at home orders.
Perhaps the right approach to reopening the country is to trust the citizens to do the right thing. If people behave responsibly, take rational steps to protect themselves if they are not sick and isolate themselves if they do become infected much of the country can begin to return to a resemblance of normal very soon. I think most people have a good idea of what they should do. I doubt many people are going to start flocking to concerts, jamming the cruise lines, filling airplanes and immediately restart shaking hands and hugging strangers because restrictions are lifted. While targeted quarantines may be needed for a while, vast areas of the country can start recovering very soon if we put a bit of trust in the people.

I agree with this. The data I posted earlier from Oregon showed a flattening and declining hospitalization curve that happened before the stay at home order was given. It was after people starting being proactive on their own once the word got out.

We are suffering from a large case of “do somethingitis” that officials often come down with.

I know some will respond with, “but stupid people won’t act responsibly so we have to make them.” As is true with any issue, some will act foolishly but fortunately reducing virus spread doesn’t require 100% participation.

westernrvparkowner wrote:

way2roll wrote:
Still waiting on Dallas Steve's evidence of the economy being ruined for his grand kids as a result of COVID actions. I asked before and never saw anything. Maybe I missed it.

Don't know about Dallas Steve's grandkids, but Oxfam International, a major charity estimates that COVID-19 may force 500 million people into poverty. There is a major concern that school closures are having a detrimental effect on the health of the very poor since school meal programs have been interrupted. Today there are several stories of how some food banks are being over-run by needy families. The economic impact is much greater than a few percentage points of decline in the stock market. Real people will suffer.

Totally agree, this is going to have tremendous economic impact for sure. Not sure it will extend to our grand kids however. Of course that's a fairly loose claim, your grand kids could be alive today..

Still waiting for the reliable data that 10's of millions of people will need a ventilator due to Covid-19.
P.S. Diatribes don't suffice for reliable data

way2roll wrote:
Still waiting on Dallas Steve's evidence of the economy being ruined for his grand kids as a result of COVID actions. I asked before and never saw anything. Maybe I missed it.

Don't know about Dallas Steve's grandkids, but Oxfam International, a major charity estimates that COVID-19 may force 500 million people into poverty. There is a major concern that school closures are having a detrimental effect on the health of the very poor since school meal programs have been interrupted. Today there are several stories of how some food banks are being over-run by needy families. The economic impact is much greater than a few percentage points of decline in the stock market. Real people will suffer.

Still waiting on Dallas Steve's evidence of the economy being ruined for his grand kids as a result of COVID actions. I asked before and never saw anything. Maybe I missed it.

ExxWhy wrote:

JimK-NY wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:
I've been wondering for several pages when the shut it down crowd thinks we should return to some sort of normalcy? No opinions on that?

It seems there are limited choices. First continue the shut downs indefinitely. The end would come only with an effective treatment or immunization. Neither seems to be coming any time in the near future.

Next would be to gradually lift the restrictions allowing the virus to spread but at a slower rate. That would mean the virus would eventually spread to hit at least half the population with a million or so deaths and tens of millions needing ventilators and intensive care. The economic costs of that level of care would be staggering to the economy.

Take your pick.

Thank you for stepping up with your view, you are the pioneer of your side of the debate. :) Hopefully some of the other folks are willing to also share their ideas?

Extreme social distancing may not be as effective as advertised. Take a look at two states that took different approaches, California and Texas. California was one of the first states to take aggressive social distancing measures. Texas was one of the last, and to date has taken a more lax approach to both rules and enforcement. Both states are among the most populous, have large, international cities and have long stretches of an international border as well as a major maritime industry leading to much transient international travel. California has a population of nearly 40 million and Texas about 30 million. To date California has 20,191 confirmed cases and Texas has 11,329. That means one out of every 1981 Californians were infected, yet only one out of every 2648 Texans suffered the same fate despite not having statewide stay at home orders.
Perhaps the right approach to reopening the country is to trust the citizens to do the right thing. If people behave responsibly, take rational steps to protect themselves if they are not sick and isolate themselves if they do become infected much of the country can begin to return to a resemblance of normal very soon. I think most people have a good idea of what they should do. I doubt many people are going to start flocking to concerts, jamming the cruise lines, filling airplanes and immediately restart shaking hands and hugging strangers because restrictions are lifted. While targeted quarantines may be needed for a while, vast areas of the country can start recovering very soon if we put a bit of trust in the people.

DallasSteve wrote:

T18skyguy wrote:

free radical wrote:
Wuhan China ends lockdown as Covid19 efectively controled

https://youtu.be/H6dQVyz0syw

Yes, but it took them 76 days, and they have complete control of their citizens. Not at all like in this country. We depend on voluntary compliance, which has actually worked quite well. The battle between micro-organism's and macro-organism's has been going on for eons. There has probably been millions of pandemics, that's exactly why we have an immune system. An event like this "culls the herd" and makes the rest stronger. It's natural selection at work. I know it's a stark description, but it's true. The virus adapts, then we adapt. Statistically, it is not 1%. It's been averaging 2.5% to 3.5% overall. Over the course of my career, I've probably intubated about 10,000 people. It's not the way you want to leave this world. To tolerate intubation, they not only sedate you but often paralyze you with medication. So your gagging but you can't move. It's horrible. Then you die from suffocation anyway if your an unlucky one. Once they get a vaccine, and we get herd immunity, it will be more like the flu. It does look like, for the most part, they have avoided a catastrotphe that could have gone to a million or more.

I disagree with the 2.5% to 3.5% figures. We should be talking about what percent of people die if they contract the virus. Many of those who contract the virus show no symptoms and are never tested. Unless we test a large enough sample we don't know what percent of those who are infected actually die.

I bet in the USA, which is the only country that I care about right now, it's much closer to 1% than your 3.5%. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than 1% because they're starting to back off on their early "scare the public" death projections and now the death count is expected to be much lower. They just said 1 or 2 million dead so that later they could say "See what a great job we did."

Well we have fewer cases because we instituted "Social Distancing" the people of NYC were still packing subways during the early stages, a great way to spread the virus. Keep in mind the number of people that get the flu and don't show symptoms.
Louisiana, had a spike in cases after Mardi Gras, just think of those that traveled to New Orleans to attend from out of state.

JimK-NY wrote:

bid_time wrote:
...There is only a debate if you think 10's of millions will need a ventilator. There are no current reliable estimates to support that theory.

The data here in NY State is pretty clear. Sure no one knows how many have been infected but the percentage of the NY population is low and tens of thousands have needed intensive care. Italy and Spain also show what happens without enough access to intensive care and ventilators. The death rate goes way up.

In NY we also know what happens when a substantial portion of hospital beds are being taken up by Covid patients. Costs of care go way, way up and resources are not available to handle other care.

Some of the latest research is indicating that ventilators may actually be having a negative effect on the death rate. Ventilators create positive pressure within the lungs and may be causing further damage to the lungs that are already weakened by the patient's immune response to the COVID virus. Governor Cuomo of New York recently said that less than 20% of patients who go on respirators successfully recover. Some research has indicated that severe COVID patients respond better to standard oxygen treatments while lying in face down instead of being placed on a ventilator.

T18skyguy wrote:

free radical wrote:
Wuhan China ends lockdown as Covid19 efectively controled

https://youtu.be/H6dQVyz0syw

Yes, but it took them 76 days, and they have complete control of their citizens. Not at all like in this country. We depend on voluntary compliance, which has actually worked quite well. The battle between micro-organism's and macro-organism's has been going on for eons. There has probably been millions of pandemics, that's exactly why we have an immune system. An event like this "culls the herd" and makes the rest stronger. It's natural selection at work. I know it's a stark description, but it's true. The virus adapts, then we adapt. Statistically, it is not 1%. It's been averaging 2.5% to 3.5% overall. Over the course of my career, I've probably intubated about 10,000 people. It's not the way you want to leave this world. To tolerate intubation, they not only sedate you but often paralyze you with medication. So your gagging but you can't move. It's horrible. Then you die from suffocation anyway if your an unlucky one. Once they get a vaccine, and we get herd immunity, it will be more like the flu. It does look like, for the most part, they have avoided a catastrotphe that could have gone to a million or more.

I disagree with the 2.5% to 3.5% figures. We should be talking about what percent of people die if they contract the virus. Many of those who contract the virus show no symptoms and are never tested. Unless we test a large enough sample we don't know what percent of those who are infected actually die.

I bet in the USA, which is the only country that I care about right now, it's much closer to 1% than your 3.5%. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than 1% because they're starting to back off on their early "scare the public" death projections and now the death count is expected to be much lower. They just said 1 or 2 million dead so that later they could say "See what a great job we did."

JimK-NY wrote:

bid_time wrote:
...There is only a debate if you think 10's of millions will need a ventilator. There are no current reliable estimates to support that theory.

The data here in NY State is pretty clear. Sure no one knows how many have been infected but the percentage of the NY population is low and tens of thousands have needed intensive care. Italy and Spain also show what happens without enough access to intensive care and ventilators. The death rate goes way up.

In NY we also know what happens when a substantial portion of hospital beds are being taken up by Covid patients. Costs of care go way, way up and resources are not available to handle other care.

Bid_Time - there is PLENTY of evidence to support it, people on here have stated it, it's available in abundance. You just don't want to believe it because it contradicts your agenda. So what's the point in trying to confuse you with facts? I seriously doubt any clearly articulated argument -and there have been plenty - will do anything to convince you of anything you don't want to believe. So you asking for evidence you don't really want, or don't don't believe before you get, is a futile affair. It's easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled.