Just a flu bro...literally

[Overnight]

...
Or, its proof the R0 among healthly low risk groups is effectively much lower than the WHO says.

hence there is no reason for the shutdown of low risk groups... just have them take precautions.

Testing and tracing can be useful when few people have the virus or when the R0 is relatively low.

It is irrelevant now, since the WHO is reporting, quite probably correctly, that those with the antibodies can still get re-infected and spread it again. It's a super-virus that mutates every couple of weeks, there is no solution to this problem, and we're all going to die from it.

Should go short on life-energy futures. <---- (Not a real thing, but you get the idea.)

 

[Overnight]

...

But good for you if you just gots to bowl baby!

Just don't pull out a piece on the lane...

 

[jem]

I read the short WHO paper earlier today.

The WHO did not say that at all. Doomers have misrepresented what the WHO wrote.

They wrote they were concerned immunity passports might not be accurate because there have been no studies saying that those with antibodies have immunity.

My take is that its an open question but that if we were not building some immunity, places like NY and surrounding areas would be overwhelmed and devastated. 14 percent of millions of people already had it. Imagine if they were spreading it over and over and over to each other.

Its a pretty good bet that at least some people have immunity or the antibody tests in NY were very wrong.

It is irrelevant now, since the WHO is reporting, quite probably correctly, that those with the antibodies can still get re-infected and spread it again. It's a super-virus that mutates every couple of weeks, there is no solution to this problem, and we're all going to die from it.

Should go short on life-energy futures. <---- (Not a real thing, but you get the idea.)

 

[Overnight]

I read the short WHO paper earlier today.

The WHO did not say that at all. Doomers have misrepresented what the WHO wrote.

They wrote they were concerned immunity passports might not be accurate because there have been no studies saying that those with antibodies have immunity.

My take is that its an open question but that if we were not building some immunity, places like NY and surrounding areas would be overwhelmed and devastated. 14 percent of millions of people already had it. Imagine if they were spreading it over and over and over to each other.

Its a pretty good bet that at least some people have immunity or the antibody tests in NY were very wrong.

You missed my sarcastic context...

"It's a super-virus that mutates every couple of weeks, there is no solution to this problem, and we're all going to die from it..."

That is going to be the takeaway in the news cycle next week, and the panic will continue to spread, longer lockdowns, and more TP hoarding.

 

[Snarkhund]

In the economic model that your ilk follow, bowling alleys would be run by the state, maybe share facilities with a DMV.

Probably be a long wait to get into those DMV bowling alleys too. Even if there are only four people in line.

Bowling Alley/DMV could work...

 

[jem]

sorry... I am looking at charts for tomorrow and I did not let the last part sink in.

You missed my sarcastic context...

"It's a super-virus that mutates every couple of weeks, there is no solution to this problem, and we're all going to die from it..."

That is going to be the takeaway in the news cycle next week, and the panic will continue to spread, longer lockdowns, and more TP hoarding.

 

[gwb-trading]

Several people have put forward the idea of only locking down the vulnerable people while allowing others to have no restrictions. This proposal will greatly increase the number of deaths.


Coronavirus: Over 100,000 could die in the U.K. if only vulnerable groups told to isolate, says professor

His team is working on a model for easing the lockdown and is due to release details in the coming days.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...roups-told-to-isolate-says-professor-11979126

More than 100,000 people could die this year if the coronavirus lockdown is lifted so only elderly and vulnerable people are shielded, an expert advising the government has said.

Professor Neil Ferguson said he was "very sceptical" that a scenario where the younger population resumed a normal life would be a "viable strategy".

He said it would require "a very high level" of effective protection for the vulnerable and elderly population, who are also the "least able to really be truly isolated".

Speaking to news outlet UnHerd, he said: "The most vulnerable people are also the people who most need care and have most interaction with the health system and are least able to really be truly isolated.

"And if you achieve just 80% shielding, 80% reduction in infection risk in those groups, we'd still project you get well over 100,000 deaths later this year through that sort of strategy."

Professor Ferguson, from Imperial College London, was the lead author of a report that said the pandemic could kill 250,000 people if the government did not enforce social distancing.

He said his team was now working on a model for easing the lockdown and would release details in the coming days.

He warned that life "cannot go completely back to normal" and that social distancing would need to remain until a vaccine is developed - something Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has said will not happen until at least next year.

"There will be a trade-off between the extent to which you relax measures and tolerate a level of transmission, and, therefore, mortality and health system demand, versus keeping case numbers as low as you can, which will probably require social distancing longer term," said Professor Ferguson.

He pointed towards the South Korean model of mass testing and contact tracing as "remarkably effective" for monitoring the virus infection rate.

South Korea has reported just 242 deaths to the disease, which is one of lowest rates in the world.

(More at above url)

 

[Tsing Tao]

What’s horseshit is you using the moral argument of “rights” to push your practical agenda even when you admit there is no explicit right to employment.

Even if there was a right to employment (and we both mean this to be the right to seek a job, not the guaranteed right to a job) the government hasn’t forbade anyone from seeking a job. Yes, there are VERY few jobs available, because of the shut downs making it harder to find a job, but no one is guaranteed a job anyhow. If it’s harder for homeless to prove they are citizens to vote, then so be it. (Oops, different topic about rights).

Wow, you're really reaching here. So desperate to admit you might have misspoken that you are actually trying to make the argument that the government isn't preventing anyone from finding a new job just because they closed all businesses everywhere. If someone is a waiter, and you shutter all restaurants with decree, its the same freaking thing as taking away his ability to get a new waiting job!!

This idea of “freedom of employment” is a platitude propagated by foxnews to support Trumps agenda in the wake of scientific evidence about the shutdowns and the pandemic

As of now there hasn’t been any serious challenges to the states for violating individuals’ Rights to work during these shutdowns. and there are many organizations who focus on this concept of rights (on both sides of the aisle).

And there's the Foxnews angle, and its Trump's agenda. That's the liberal go-to when you can't win an argument based on facts.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Several people have put forward the idea of only locking down the vulnerable people while allowing others to have no restrictions. This proposal will greatly increase the number of deaths.


Coronavirus: Over 100,000 could die in the U.K. if only vulnerable groups told to isolate, says professor

His team is working on a model for easing the lockdown and is due to release details in the coming days.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...roups-told-to-isolate-says-professor-11979126

More than 100,000 people could die this year if the coronavirus lockdown is lifted so only elderly and vulnerable people are shielded, an expert advising the government has said.

Professor Neil Ferguson said he was "very sceptical" that a scenario where the younger population resumed a normal life would be a "viable strategy".

He said it would require "a very high level" of effective protection for the vulnerable and elderly population, who are also the "least able to really be truly isolated".

Speaking to news outlet UnHerd, he said: "The most vulnerable people are also the people who most need care and have most interaction with the health system and are least able to really be truly isolated.

"And if you achieve just 80% shielding, 80% reduction in infection risk in those groups, we'd still project you get well over 100,000 deaths later this year through that sort of strategy."

Professor Ferguson, from Imperial College London, was the lead author of a report that said the pandemic could kill 250,000 people if the government did not enforce social distancing.

He said his team was now working on a model for easing the lockdown and would release details in the coming days.

He warned that life "cannot go completely back to normal" and that social distancing would need to remain until a vaccine is developed - something Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has said will not happen until at least next year.

"There will be a trade-off between the extent to which you relax measures and tolerate a level of transmission, and, therefore, mortality and health system demand, versus keeping case numbers as low as you can, which will probably require social distancing longer term," said Professor Ferguson.

He pointed towards the South Korean model of mass testing and contact tracing as "remarkably effective" for monitoring the virus infection rate.

South Korea has reported just 242 deaths to the disease, which is one of lowest rates in the world.

(More at above url)

Sure it would. Another model that won't pan out.

 

[newwurldmn]

Wow, you're really reaching here. So desperate to admit you might have misspoken that you are actually trying to make the argument that the government isn't preventing anyone from finding a new job just because they closed all businesses everywhere. If someone is a waiter, and you shutter all restaurants with decree, its the same freaking thing as taking away his ability to get a new waiting job!!



And there's the Foxnews angle, and its Trump's agenda. That's the liberal go-to when you can't win an argument based on facts.

Reaching for what? Desperate for what? Where have i misspoken?

You are the desperate one. You believe the economy should re-open, but can’t admit to say “many will die” so you couch it in “rights” and then when I show you many examples of those “rights being violated” you counter with “that’s the law so it’s okay.” But this time isn’t okay because the Republican president wants the economy reopen.

I understand your MO now and this is a waste of time.