Covid-19 discussion, continued...

https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2020/04/21/los-angeles-study-backs-stanford-researchers-conclusion-about-high-prevalence-of-covid-19

Its not hard to find this stuff.  

posted by Spock

I will give you an hint......I aint stupid

And to think, you work in a school

posted by SportsAndLady

And to think, you work in a school

You know what they say:

If you can, do.

If you can't, teach.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Not a true statement. It proves no such thing.

God I hate this, but CC is right again.

If large amounts of people already had it, as the testing/studies are starting to show, then people got it ANYWAY, even with large scale lockdowns.

This means the lockdowns didn't work, people still got the virus, and the virus wasn't as deadly for normal/healthy people as they thought.

Also, Dr. Acton has confirmed there were cases in Ohio dating back to January. That was a two month head start for this thing to get going with no one thinking about it. It’s not like we woke up the morning of March 10th and were like oh shit it’s here better stay inside and just narrowly avoided the worst of it. 

Wore a mask for close to three hours at an appointment today. Was not bothersome at all.

posted by thavoice

You know what they say:

If you can, do.

If you can't, teach.

I always hated that saying. 
 

FWIW, I am living off a pretty nice pension. 

posted by Fab4Runner

Was not bothersome at all.

I agree. 

posted by Spock

I will give you an hint......I aint stupid

Can this post be saved to some sort of HOF?  

posted by thavoice

You know what they say:

If you can, do.

If you can't, teach.

If you can't teach, teach gym.

posted by BRF

I always hated that saying. 
 

FWIW, I am living off a pretty nice pension. 

Yeah, I know!  4 family members teach, a profession I should have chosen, and they always get a good laugh of it..........

posted by queencitybuckeye

How much of it was due to the danger being overhyped and how much was due to the precautions actually working?

There is a perfect case study available - Sweden.  There were no mandated lockdowns, school closings, business closings whatever.  Their rates of infection and death rates were not the lowest in Europe, but close.  They were both far lower than than those of Italy, Spain, France the UK and the US.  Not only did they not lose any more people than those countries that locked down, they have likely gotten a head start on herd immunity and their economy will have a much smaller hit compared to other western nations.

The lockdown was an understandable step based on the information leaders were being provided at the time - bad data largely based on misleading results from China.  Once this fact became clearer - a mere two weeks in, our leaders should have adjusted quickly.  They did not.  This is not political because the failures came from BOTH SIDES of the spectrum.  But enough is enough.  It is time to acknowledge that the lockdowns are ineffective and should be lifted completely immediately.  

posted by jmog

God I hate this, but CC is right again.

 

If large amounts of people already had it, as the testing/studies are starting to show, then people got it ANYWAY, even with large scale lockdowns.

 

This means the lockdowns didn't work, people still got the virus, and the virus wasn't as deadly for normal/healthy people as they thought.

Incorrect, as you don't know and cannot know how many people likely avoided getting it BECAUSE they stayed home. It's likely a large number, particularly in the high risk groups. That there are more asymptomatic people with the virus means it was actually more important for that group to heed the stay at home policy.

posted by jmog

I hate to ever agree with CC, but the numbers of asymptomatic carriers we are now understanding to be realistic (30-40 times the actual reported cases) leads to believe the death rate and how bad this virus is is WAY overstated. 
 

One California/USC study and one study in NY showed you can multiply the actual cases by 30-40, as they tested random samples of people for the antibodies. 
 

If these studies are right, that means 48 MILLION people in the US have had it already which takes the death rate from 6% down to 0.2%. 
 

 

Not the least bit surprised.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Incorrect, as you don't know and cannot know how many people likely avoided getting it BECAUSE they stayed home. It's likely a large number, particularly in the high risk groups. That there are more asymptomatic people with the virus means it was actually more important for that group to heed the stay at home policy.

 

 

Why then is Sweden's infection and death rate (btw, a country that has tested a higher percentage of the population than here) well below ours and many other countries that implemented strict lockdowns?  There is no evidence that lockdowns prevented or lowered rates of infection.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

  There is no evidence that lockdowns prevented or lowered rates of infection.  

You’re a complete moron if you believe that. 

posted by SportsAndLady

You’re a complete moron if you believe that. 

That's not an answer. Why does Sweden have lower infection rates than most European countries after no lockdown?  It doesn't reconcile to what you're saying - that lockdowns lowered infection and/or death rates. 

Also, there is no correlation between infection / death rates and states with the strictest/earliest/longest lockdowns. 

I think the lockdowns were a sensible reaction considering what data was available. Now that much better data is available, we shouldn't just continue on that course with nothing to support doing it. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

That's not an answer. Why does Sweden have lower infection rates than most European countries after no lockdown?  It doesn't reconcile to what you're saying - that lockdowns lowered infection and/or death rates. 

 

Also, there is no correlation between infection / death rates and states with the strictest/earliest/longest lockdowns. 

 

I think the lockdowns were a sensible reaction considering what data was available. Now that much better data is available, we shouldn't just continue on that course with nothing to support doing it. 

Who is continuing on that course? Ohio is not. North Carolina is not.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Who is continuing on that course? Ohio is not. North Carolina is not.

Illinois, New York, California, New Jersey, Michigan, among others. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Illinois, New York, California, New Jersey, Michigan, among others. 

Seems to be a pattern.