COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Actually there’s evidence that that isn’t happening.  The problem is it’s evidence from China which you claim isn’t an acceptable place to get data from.

 

Your assumption is “unless there is proof I am wrong I am right”

 

nope.  
 

Unless there is proof someone is wrong no one is right.  

We.

Lack.

Proof.

 

Of anything.  So do we run into the dark basement with the communities only flashlight hoping for a quick and profitable fix?  Or do we wait for morning?

So we shouldnt ain for something known to work (herd immunity) because we DONT know something else bad wont happen?

 

Thats an asinine thought process.  We dont make plans on "what ifs" based on no knowledge.

 

Theres no evidence that what you are speaking of will happen...yet we should plan on it happening?

 

 

[lewdicrous]

 

[Bombastinator]

24 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

So we shouldnt ain for something known to work (herd immunity) because we DONT know something else bad wont happen?

 

Thats an asinine thought process.  We dont make plans on "what ifs" based on no knowledge.

 

Theres no evidence that what you are speaking of will happen...yet we should plan on it happening?

 

 

You’re ignoring the thing yet again: I’ll say it for maybe the fourth time now:

 

we don’t know right now if herd immunity will work.  Period.   It has to last for a minimum amount of time and we don’t know if it will.
 

We can dive at it blind, and maybe live as a species.  Or not. and everyone dies because even if they get better they will keep on getting sick again until they don’t.

 Or we can find out IF herd immunity will work with this particular disease which is the one that matters. IF I does it becomes an option.  
There was hope we would know such things by now.  There was hope in a lot of things.  None of them have panned out.  Except social distancing.

 

Good chance a dive at herd immunity will kill me even if it actually does work, but I can deal with that.  I’m old.  I got no kids.  I’m less important than most. I certainly won’t be the only one.  It doesn’t appeal much.

 

None of this really matters at this point.  Opening is being attempted.  According to the news from Korea it’s going even worse there than the low end projected models here and Korea was more ready than we are.

[RonnieOP]

15 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

You’re ignoring the thing yet again: I’ll say it for maybe the fourth time now:

 

we don’t know right now if herd immunity will work.  Period.   It has to last for a minimum amount of time and we don’t know if it will.
 

We can dive at it blind, and maybe live as a species.  Or not. and everyone dies because even if they get better they will keep on getting sick again until they don’t.

 Or we can find out IF herd immunity will work with this particular disease which is the one that matters. IF I does it becomes an option.  
There was hope we would know such things by now.  There was hope in a lot of things.  None of them have panned out.  Except social distancing.

 

Good chance a dive at herd immunity will kill me even if it actually does work, but I can deal with that.  I’m old.  I got no kids.  I’m less important than most. I certainly won’t be the only one.  It doesn’t appeal much.

 

None of this really matters at this point.  Opening is being attempted.  According to the news from Korea it’s going even worse there than the low end projected models here and Korea was more ready than we are.

We dont know if itll work for this virus. We know it has worked in the past. There is evidence that it can work. What you are speaking of has no evidence. So why would you go with no evidence vs evidence?

 

Your whole argument is basically that we should not do anything risky....which is not a good argument. By that logic the vaccine would never get pushed out. We have to take risks orherwise we are sitting ducks.

 

If you are worried that your age or health means the virus will kill you...stay at home. Its that simple.

 

If the virus is likely to kill you tomorrow the virus is just as likely to kill you in two months, six months, a year, etc until there is a vaccine. And the vaccine will probably kill a good amount of people as well just like other vaccines.

 

We are going to see cases go up. Thats a given. But cases going up doesnt matter if the people getting it are low risk and wont likely even see a doctor. Thats the point of herd immunity. 

 

We can see from the data who is at most risk. Hell in most states around 50% of deaths are from nursing homes. 

 

You laid out 3 options. One wont happen until maybe next year, the other one is 100% impossible to do, and the third we can do but you fight against it because of fear of risks with no evidence.

 

Im not sure what you are wanting here. Your basically saying no option at all should be attempted 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

Can and does are different things.  
 

The step to pretend China doesn’t exist was interesting.  Crap, but interesting.  Let’s play with it for now.

 

the argument is to look at risk vs reward.  You seem to want to risk a lot and risk for everyone else as well as yourself really really bad.  also your pressing binary thought upon me.  Because risk is non zero no matter what is done, which is true, a lot of risk is the same as a little risk.  Not true.  
 

 

It still doesn’t matter though.  It’s being tried.  Data will be acquired at the cost of a number of lives.  We’ll see how it goes you might get lucky and not kill that many people.  Herd immunity could work.  Or it won’t and we get to do everything all over again, except worse.  

[Rakanoth]

On the topic of "you just want haircuts", it's disgusting to see so many people completely misrepresenting and oversimplifying an entire side of such an important issue.

 

I don't think people really understand what an economic collapse really means. It's not about not getting a haircut and it's not being able to dine out. It's having the means to buy food. If you have the means to buy food, it's about food being available to buy. It about being able to pay your mortgage and being able to make your car payment.

 

I got hit with the “you just wanna dine out for fun” thing. Do they not understand by getting a haircut and eating at a restaurant you’re ensuring that these small businesses can run? An exchange of goods and services for money is literally the only way the world can function? And while everyone wants to trumpet the big businesses are bad and evil, well guess what? Deprive them of revenues for months on end and these massive businesses start laying people off in droves. Our world runs on business and we cannot just slam on the brakes indefinitely.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

We flattened the curve. We all agree on that.

 

So if we agree its no less deadly in two months as it is now....why wait to reopen areas? 

 

The way we deal with it now is the same way we deal with it in a month or two. Unless something magically happens in medicine. 

 

So why continue to weaken the entire country when the outcome is the same?

 

 

1. You haven't flattened the curve yet, it's only started to bend.  You have to sit with a definitive curve bend for at least a couple of weeks before you can claim the curve has been flattened.

 

2. If you open to soon any flattening just shoots straight back up.  With the amount of testing being done it will take weeks to see the results of any reopening strategy.  That is why it has to be a little at a time.

 

Where I live we have had on average 1-2 new cases a day for the last 2 weeks (with the exception of a single cluster of 40 but that was fully contained and known about).  We still haven't had any lifting of lock down rules and won't see anything for another few days.  When the announce it will only be small stuff, very controlled stuff.

 

Do I think that's too slow? yes a little, butt here are other very unique factors to us here that don;t apply where you are and we aren't in the same condition with our health system or number of tests per population over the course of the whole emergency.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Rakanoth said:

 

 

I don't think people really understand what an economic collapse really means.

Yes we do, we are not dumb and neither are the governments of each country. We are fully aware of the financial consequences.  The problem is the virus is more deadly than financial ruin is.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

44 minutes ago, Rakanoth said:

On the topic of "you just want haircuts", it's disgusting to see so many people completely misrepresenting and oversimplifying an entire side of such an important issue.

 

I don't think people really understand what an economic collapse really means. It's not about not getting a haircut and it's not being able to dine out. It's having the means to buy food. If you have the means to buy food, it's about food being available to buy. It about being able to pay your mortgage and being able to make your car payment.

 

I got hit with the “you just wanna dine out for fun” thing. Do they not understand by getting a haircut and eating at a restaurant you’re ensuring that these small businesses can run? An exchange of goods and services for money is literally the only way the world can function? And while everyone wants to trumpet the big businesses are bad and evil, well guess what? Deprive them of revenues for months on end and these massive businesses start laying people off in droves. Our world runs on business and we cannot just slam on the brakes indefinitely.

So what you’re saying is “yes” but youre going to defend it by using the same words like “disgusting” that were used by those people talking about you.  Or so that sounds anyway.

everyone wants those things back.  It’s just that  they’re not worth mass death.

 

  Haircuts are a hard one, as are bars.  Covid is basically a bag of fat and human hair holds 8 times its weight in oil.  Covid could live for a loooong time on hair.  At bars people get drunk and act stupid.  Both are difficult to manage.   You pick those though.   

 

we’re not going to be able to have barber shops and bars the old way till covid is dead.  Not to say we can’t have em though.  We’ve got to get creative, and it’s going to take time.  Or we can kill covid by social distancing till it dies.  Gonna eat our economy though.  Hurt everyone.  The whole have cake and eat it too situation was gone by February.   Grasping at straws doesn’t work. 
 

You talk about slamming on the breaks indefinitely.  Both solutions are indefinitely.   More pain now, no pain later, or less pain now but possibly forever. And a possibility of death. 
 

Indefinite in the case of social distancing means an unknown number of months.  Less than 6 most likely.  Reopening is basically guaranteed to be much more than 6 months.  And might be apocalypse.  
 

 

[Guest]

On 5/9/2020 at 7:08 AM, Bombastinator said:

No.  It really doesn’t.  Plus bad logic.

 

There’s this thing called R rating.  If the R rating is below 1 deaths go down.  If the r rating is above 1 deaths go up.  if r can be kept below 1 for long enough the disease goes to zero and dies.  That’s what China did.  It took multiple months.  It has not been done ANYWHERE outside of China so far as I am aware.  A lot of things affect r rating.  One of them is social distancing.  It’s basically the ONLY thing that has been found that has much of any effect.  There are lots of things that could.  A vaccine is one.  Herd immunity is potentially another (though it may not work).  Contact tracing is a third.  We don’t have any of those yet though.  We’ve had a good period of below r1 in a lot of places.  Not far below one, and Not the nation as a whole, but parts of it. I’ve seen models where the r rating of covid has been driven as high as 5 with changes to human behavior.

 

it is not necessary for the virus to “magically” die.  People can kill it.  It’s been done.  It’s merely extremely painful.  Some argue too painful therefore we should allow some people to die, and light heartedly hope that “some” does not turn out to be “everyone” because once down that path it cannot be turned back from without vastly greater pain than was already deemed unacceptable.  

The basic reproductive number is called R0, and is a measure on how transmissible the disease is. It is a common metric based on how many secondary infections can result in a susceptible community from one infected individual. An R0 value under one indicates an elimination phase of the disease.

 

Herd immunity is calculated by R0-1/R0. The most current R0 value for SARS-CoV-2 is 2.45. This makes our herd immunity threshold 59.18. 

 

The R0 value is not affected by vaccination, the population the virus can infect is smaller, but the transmissibility of disease remains the same. 
 

Instead when a vaccine is available, and quite often the immunity conferred by a vaccine is not 100% effective - although due to mechanisms it will protect against transmission. We use the equation Vc (vaccine coverage) = (1-1/R0)/E, where E is vaccine effectiveness. This is the vaccine coverage needed to reach herd immunity. Notice how it does not affect R0 value.

 

The only treatments used in clinics is typical virus treatments, IFNa and some cases steroids. Remdesivir is not effective. Palliative care, such as forced ventilation in severe cases is the best treatment combined with IFN. These are designed to assist the immune system.

6 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

We have no clue whats really going on in china. Nor do we know if they "killed" it in any way. 

 

Theres no factual evidence that china "killed the virus". 

 

Contact tracing cannot be done in the US. Not in a meaningful way that would actually work. Its impossible. You cant enforce it. It will never/cant ever happen.

 

A vaccine is nowhere in sight. We dont even have any evidence that we will ever get one at this time (not saying we wont. I think we will and i hope we will)

 

So out of the three options  you put the only one that is realistic any time this year is herd immunity.

 

Herd immunity is not aimed at protection for healthy individuals it’s is for at-risk. This includes elderly, obese individuals, smokers, hypertensive or diabetics.

 

Two vaccines are currently in phase II trials, you can expect them to be post-licensure within months, if phase III trials are skipped as have been for some prior vaccines. Contact tracing is necessary for an effective immunisation programme.

[Bombastinator]

16 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

The basic reproductive number is called R0, and is a measure on how transmissible the disease is. It is a common metric based on how many secondary infections can result in a susceptible community from one infected individual. An R0 value under one indicates an elimination phase of the disease.

 

Herd immunity is calculated by R0-1/R0. The most current R0 value for SARS-CoV-2 is 2.45. This makes our herd immunity threshold 59.18. 

 

The R0 value is not affected by vaccination, the population the virus can infect is smaller, but the transmissibility of disease remains the same. 
 

Instead when a vaccine is available, and quite often the immunity conferred by a vaccine is not 100% effective - although due to mechanisms it will protect against transmission. We use the equation Vc (vaccine coverage) = (1-1/R0)/E, where E is vaccine effectiveness. This is the vaccine coverage needed to reach herd immunity. Notice how it does not affect R0 value.

 

The only treatments used in clinics is typical virus treatments, IFNa and some cases steroids. Remdesivir is not effective. Palliative care, such as forced ventilation in severe cases is the best treatment combined with IFN. These are designed to assist the immune system.

 

Herd immunity is not aimed at protection for healthy individuals it’s is for at-risk. This includes elderly, obese individuals, smokers, hypertensive or diabetics.

 

Two vaccines are currently in phase II trials, you can expect them to be post-licensure within months, if phase III trials are skipped as have been for some prior vaccines. Contact tracing is necessary for an effective immunisation programme.

Interesting.  Not different than what I was trying to say I think.  Massive simplification has that problem.  I had hear remdesivir wasn’t ineffective exactly so much as it wasn’t effective enough.  It might still help someone who caught the disease less likely to die from it, but only a bit.  At least that time.  You might mean as a preventative.  Yeah.  Wouldn’t do jack for that.

[RonnieOP]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

1. You haven't flattened the curve yet, it's only started to bend.  You have to sit with a definitive curve bend for at least a couple of weeks before you can claim the curve has been flattened.

 

2. If you open to soon any flattening just shoots straight back up.  With the amount of testing being done it will take weeks to see the results of any reopening strategy.  That is why it has to be a little at a time.

 

Where I live we have had on average 1-2 new cases a day for the last 2 weeks (with the exception of a single cluster of 40 but that was fully contained and known about).  We still haven't had any lifting of lock down rules and won't see anything for another few days.  When the announce it will only be small stuff, very controlled stuff.

 

Do I think that's too slow? yes a little, butt here are other very unique factors to us here that don;t apply where you are and we aren't in the same condition with our health system or number of tests per population over the course of the whole emergency.

 

 

 

 

The purpose of the lockdowns was to keep hospitals from being over ran. We did that. Not a single hospital had to turn away anyone. The navy ships were not needed and the temp hospitals were closed without any patients being in them.

 

Reopening "too soon" doesnt mean the hospitals will be over ran. Unless the high risk minority decide to say fuck it and go out with everyone else. And thats on them. Nobody else.

 

It will cause the curve to go up. No doubt. Doesnt matter though if that majority of those people wont need medical attention. So it wont strain anything.

 

Infection numbers mean nothing. Death numbers do. 

 

Have the high risk stay home and be safe. Keeping the low risk home makes zero sense. Sure it protects them from being sick for a few days. But at a cost thats not worth it.

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

The purpose of the lockdowns was to keep hospitals from being over ran. We did that. Not a single hospital had to turn away anyone. The navy ships were not needed and the temp hospitals were closed without any patients being in them.

 

Reopening "too soon" doesnt mean the hospitals will be over ran. Unless the high risk minority decide to say fuck it and go out with everyone else. And thats on them. Nobody else.

 

It will cause the curve to go up. No doubt. Doesnt matter though if that majority of those people wont need medical attention. So it wont strain anything.

 

Infection numbers mean nothing. Death numbers do. 

 

Have the high risk stay home and be safe. Keeping the low risk home makes zero sense. Sure it protects them from being sick for a few days. But at a cost thats not worth it.

Trying a similar failed argument on someone else?  Same problem as last time.

[RonnieOP]

2 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

The basic reproductive number is called R0, and is a measure on how transmissible the disease is. It is a common metric based on how many secondary infections can result in a susceptible community from one infected individual. An R0 value under one indicates an elimination phase of the disease.

 

Herd immunity is calculated by R0-1/R0. The most current R0 value for SARS-CoV-2 is 2.45. This makes our herd immunity threshold 59.18. 

 

The R0 value is not affected by vaccination, the population the virus can infect is smaller, but the transmissibility of disease remains the same. 
 

Instead when a vaccine is available, and quite often the immunity conferred by a vaccine is not 100% effective - although due to mechanisms it will protect against transmission. We use the equation Vc (vaccine coverage) = (1-1/R0)/E, where E is vaccine effectiveness. This is the vaccine coverage needed to reach herd immunity. Notice how it does not affect R0 value.

 

The only treatments used in clinics is typical virus treatments, IFNa and some cases steroids. Remdesivir is not effective. Palliative care, such as forced ventilation in severe cases is the best treatment combined with IFN. These are designed to assist the immune system.

 

Herd immunity is not aimed at protection for healthy individuals it’s is for at-risk. This includes elderly, obese individuals, smokers, hypertensive or diabetics.

 

Two vaccines are currently in phase II trials, you can expect them to be post-licensure within months, if phase III trials are skipped as have been for some prior vaccines. Contact tracing is necessary for an effective immunisation programme.

It will be a miracle if we have anything this year let alone within months.  I mean it would be great. I hope it happens. But i dont see anyone claiming thats likely.

 

And contact tracing is impossible (in the states atleast) so whatever they do will have to be done without that as a factor.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Trying a similar failed argument on someone else?  Same problem as last time.

Its not a failed argument.

 

Your argument was "dont take risks because of the unknown".

 

You thought process was just idiotic. By your logic a vaccine would be a decade away since they have to take risks to get it through faster.

 

You gave 3 options on what needs to happen. I explained how one was years away, the other was impossible, and the third you didnt like because you think (without evidence) low risk people are going to die from it.

 

And then you stopped replying.

 

Id love to know what you think should be done that is realistic. Lockdown isnt going to last till a cure, tracing wont work in a meaningful way. Cure isnt anywhere close, and you dont like herd immunity.

 

What is your idea? 

[Bombastinator]

Just now, RonnieOP said:

Its not a failed argument.

 

Your argument was "dont take risks because of the unknown".

 

You thought process was just idiotic. By your logic a vaccine would be a decade away since they have to take risks to get it through faster.

 

You gave 3 options on what needs to happen. I explained how one was years away, the other was impossible, and the third you didnt like because you think (without evidence) low risk people are going to die from it.

 

And then you stopped replying.

 

Id love to know what you think should be done that is realistic. Lockdown isnt going to last till a cure, tracing wont work in a meaningful way. Cure isnt anywhere close, and you dont like herd immunity.

 

What is your idea? 

It failed days ago.  you just keep on trying to resuscitate it by trying different versions of the same thing.   Only difference here is you’re trying old versions 
 

No that was for a different one. 

[RonnieOP]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

It failed days ago.  you just keep on trying to resuscitate it by trying different versions of the same thing.   Only difference here is you’re trying old versions 
 

No that was for a different one. 

So you have no answer on what we should do? Your against every other idea but have none of your own?

 

 

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

So you have no answer on what we should do? Your against every other idea but have none of your own?

 

 

The answer is to follow the guidelines set out by epidemiologists and pandemic experts. Not to try an dput forward your own like you know how the fuck to deal with the problem.

 

If you want to believe your opinion or the opinion from anyone on a forum carries any weight then you are doomed to failure.  You wouldn't take stock trading or medical advice seriously on a forum, why would you assume you or anyone here could solve the issue.  

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Interesting.  Not different than what I was trying to say I think.  Massive simplification has that problem.  I had hear remdesivir wasn’t ineffective exactly so much as it wasn’t effective enough.  It might still help someone who caught the disease less likely to die from it, but only a bit.  At least that time.  You might mean as a preventative.  Yeah.  Wouldn’t do jack for that.

Unfortunately remdesivir has only resulted in significantly less time in clinics. Unfortunately when we say significant, we are referring to the conclusion, remdesivir saves about 4 days for patients admitted to hospitals, out of around 14 (if I remember correctly). 

 

20 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

It will be a miracle if we have anything this year let alone within months.  I mean it would be great. I hope it happens. But i dont see anyone claiming thats likely.

 

And contact tracing is impossible (in the states atleast) so whatever they do will have to be done without that as a factor.

I’m claiming it’s likely. The closet vaccine is Ad5-nCoV. It’s based on the RBD of the spike protein in an adenovirus vector. Began Phase II trials on 10th or April, seeing as in pandemics we may skip phase III trials, this means a few months up to 2 years, but usually in months

 

Contact tracing has been done for Polio in the US before.

[RonnieOP]

Just now, mr moose said:

The answer is to follow the guidelines set out by epidemiologists and pandemic experts. Not to try an dput forward your own like you know how the fuck to deal with the problem.

 

If you want to believe your opinion or the opinion from anyone on a forum carries any weight then you are doomed to failure.  You wouldn't take stock trading or medical advice seriously on a forum, why would you assume you or anyone here could solve the issue.  

 

Scientist and epidemiologists are not in agreement on this. 

 

Your point only makes sense if some were not also telling us that locking down everyone isnt the right thing to do.

 

And the whole argument from authority means nothing to me. You dont need to be a scientist to ask questions. You dont need to be a health expert to read the stats and data that is being provided. 

 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

So you have no answer on what we should do? Your against every other idea but have none of your own?

 

 

Lol.  There it is again.  It’s how it seems to work.  Same failed argument with some sophistry on it.  Generally a form of because this thing is true (which it actually sometimes is)  this other (generally unrelated and already disproven thing) must also be true.

 

Now you’re  claiming most of my replies in this section never happened.

 

Lets shorten it:

you like herd immunity.  It’s unproven in this instance, and While it could be proven one way or the other it takes a long time to get data for and you don’t want to wait.  You want now now now and the only reason you even back herd immunity is because if couched in particular ways (that don’t actually work) it’s supportive of now now now.  I like moving from a position of understanding.  I believe in the long run actually going through with reducing the disease through known methods will actually be faster and less damaging for everyone.  It certainly kills less people.  It’s “business is more important than life” vs “without life there will be no business to begin with.  Businesses can be rebuilt.  Death is forever”. 
 

that’s how it goes and has been going for like 20 posts now.

[RonnieOP]

Just now, RorzNZ said:

Unfortunately remdesivir has only resulted in significantly less time in clinics. Unfortunately when we say significant, we are referring to the conclusion, remdesivir saves about 4 days for patients admitted to hospitals, out of around 14 (if I remember correctly). 

 

I’m claiming it’s likely. The closet vaccine is Ad5-nCoV. It’s based on the RBD of the spike protein in an adenovirus vector. Began Phase II trials on 10th or April, seeing as in pandemics we may skip phase III trials, this means a few months up to 2 years, but usually in months

 

Contact tracing has been done for Polio in the US before.

In order for contact tracing to work in the us youd need basically everyone to agree to it and take part in it.

 

They cant force anyone to do that. They cant punish people for not doing it. Thats why i say it wont work.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Scientist and epidemiologists are not in agreement on this. 

 

Your point only makes sense if some were not also telling us that locking down everyone isnt the right thing to do.

 

And the whole argument from authority means nothing to me. You dont need to be a scientist to ask questions. You dont need to be a health expert to read the stats and data that is being provided. 

 

 

 

Re: agreement.

Seen that one all the way back in the 70’s with global warming stuff and oil companies.  Its not “agreement” because as long as they can find one guy no matter how crazy they can stick them in the set and say it’s not “complete” agreement even though it’s 100 to 1.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Lol.  There it is again.  It’s how it seems to work.  Same failed argument with some sophistry on it.  Generally a form of because this thing is true (which it actually sometimes is)  this other (generally unrelated and already disproven thing) must also be true.

 

Now you’re  claiming most of my replies in this section never happened.

 

Lets shorten it:

you like herd immunity.  It’s unproven in this instance, and While it could be proven one way or the other it takes a long time to get data for and you don’t want to wait.  You want now now now and the only reason you even back herd immunity is because if couched in particular ways (that don’t actually work) it’s supportive of now now now.  I like moving from a position of understanding.  I believe in the long run actually going through with reducing the disease through known methods will actually be faster and less damaging for everyone.  It certainly kills less people.  It’s “business is more important than life” vs “without life there will be no business to begin with.  Businesses can be rebuilt.  Death is forever”. 
 

that’s how it goes and has been going for like 20 posts now.

The disease isnt being reduced. Its still out there.

 

What are we doing thats proven to reduce it?

 

Again you act as if this is deadly for everyone. Its not. We know its not. If it was we wouldnt have 1.2 million known cases with just 80k deaths. 

 

There was an article from medicalxpress yesterday about a study that showed the death rate is 1.3% and thats without counting the unknown cases. Which we know from studies in boston and la that the infection rate is much higher then reported. The studies were estimating the death rate to be closer to .5%

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

Scientist and epidemiologists are not in agreement on this. 

 

Your point only makes sense if some were not also telling us that locking down everyone isnt the right thing to do.

What you have ether is a false equivalency, where you take the word of one person over another rather than look at both the combined advice of professionals from observed evidence and the general understanding of the virus or you have an appeal to authority.  Basically you pick and choose the outlier with a degree and claim they are just as relevant and accurate as the general body of professionals who say otherwise.

 

2 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

And the whole argument from authority means nothing to me. You dont need to be a scientist to ask questions. You dont need to be a health expert to read the stats and data that is being provided. 

 

 

 

 

MY argument is not an argument from authority (actual term is as above), my point is that when you have a scientific consensus on a topic, that consensus is derived form the weight of the evidence pointing toward a theory or hypothesis.  Accepting this as the most likely explanation is not an apeal to authority, it is an observation of evidence based research.  An appeal to authority is what you are doing, pointing to someone who has a relevant education and claiming because they say something different that there is not evidence for the alternative or that that evidence can be dismissed.  This is not true.  You cannot simply dismiss the general body of evidence on something just because one or two wayward crack pots disagree.