No, but it's important, very important that we identify all pre existing conditions as it helps us refine who is at a greater risk than others. We absolutely need this detail if we're going to properly manage this until we have a vaccine.
San Diego only Had 6 pure Covid deaths per Supervisor
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
I do not attack " any politician who pushes opening their state or challenging statistics". For example do you hear me greatly criticizing the re-opening in North Carolina? In North Carolina we are about enter Phase 2 on Friday. The governor and opposition legislature representatives are providing the same message - "We are right on the hairy edge of being able to re-open from a statistics viewpoint but we are proceeding with the re-opening but continue to proceed in a cautious manner." There is no dispute over data, statistics, and COVID-19 policy in our state for the most part. You get a little Democratic/Republican bickering for campaign purposes (for example about opening churches) but for the most part both parties are on board. And the people in our state generally are trusting the re-open process with something like 81% support.
I have only attacked political administrations who are deliberately altering data in a wholesale manner to mislead people in a state. I have attacked political administrations who push re-opening on accelerated schedules to appease business donors that defy logic, medical advice, and science. In Georgia, even Trump called out Kemp for being an idiot. And Trump is the king of wanting to re-open America.
And no "I don't take offense to that" -- but at this time in the U.S. we need to have transparency in data and strong unified direction in policy to best address COVID-19 while balancing public health and economic concerns.
I have stated very clearly -- including about the recent Colorado example -- that I do not support counting people who not have COVID or obviously died from another cause such as drinking themselves to death as COVID statistics. But note that so far these have been small number situations (ones & twos) where there is any dispute - -this is very different than wholesale faking data on a state website to show hundreds of less deaths and thousands of less cases.
However if a person dies at home and their autopsy reveals all the characteristic in the lungs, etc. as COVID then it makes sense that they likely should be listed as COVID-19 as related to the cause of death (even if no test was available because tests are still in short supply). Or at least create a "probable" category like New York state did.
the point is ...
if you are a healthy person in the low risk group,
this virus is very unlikely to kill you. Especially, if you get some sun and eat to support your immune system.
Basically you want to avoid that cytokine storm.
So now that we understand his implicit point.
We must open up for the low risk groups.
if you are a healthy person in the low risk group,
this virus is very unlikely to kill you. Especially, if you get some sun and eat to support your immune system.
Basically you want to avoid that cytokine storm.
So now that we understand his implicit point.
We must open up for the low risk groups.
