Why don't you edit it one more time.
Dude, I suffer from too much dick. Clearly seen from the pkg.
The Herd, Vaccine and Natural Immunity Thread....
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Why don't you edit it one more time.
Dude, I suffer from too much dick. Clearly seen from the pkg.
What I don't understand is why most of the lefties don't understand this.
It's not complicated. Its almost like you are all being morons on purpose.
In short its Virus now vs Virus later. (Fauci's lockdown would never make the virus go away.)
Shutdown now / Virus later means more damage throughout society and perhaps the same amount of deaths. Virus now for the low risk group has the potential for a much better overall outcome once you manage the hospital beds.
Please don't even begin to think you know what what to think... or try to judge my view unless you read this paper and understand it.
This comes from one of the best modelers in the world.
He explains after a temporary lockdown letting the low risk group out is likely to have much better overall outcomes since the deaths will be close to the same in the Covid group and you may save deaths overall. (plus you save massive financial and other types of harm.)
Targeted limited lockdowns are the proper way to handle this virus.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3579712
...
Six weeks after becoming a pandemic, COVID-19 has caused over 150,000 deaths across 210 countries. Governments around the world have instituted universal lockdowns to curve the spread of this serious disease. While it is obvious that extended universal lockdowns have saved lives that otherwise would have been lost to COVID-19, they have also caused historical losses of livelihoods. Universal lockdowns are particularly detrimental to minorities and the working class, who have suffered the greatest job loss since the Great Depression. In some countries, unemployment carries the loss of access to health services, which is the opposite of what lockdowns intended to achieve. Hundreds of millions of citizens worldwide will endure the effects of universal lockdowns for years to come.
Universal lockdowns are a blunt tool that should be used tactically, for brief periods of time. In this study, we introduce a new mathematical model (called K-SEIR) to simulate the outcomes of lockdowns, and help evaluate various exit strategies. We demonstrate that targeted lockdowns can achieve better outcomes than universal lockdowns, in terms of (1) saving lives, (2) protecting the most vulnerable in society (the elderly, the poor), and (3) preventing the depletion of medical resources.
There is not one solution that fits all. National governments must devise tailored targeted lockdowns, based on their particular circumstances. We hope that the K-SEIR model will help governments learn from the mistakes of the COVID-19 crisis management, and help prepare society for COVID-20.[/QUOTE]
It's not complicated. Its almost like you are all being morons on purpose.
In short its Virus now vs Virus later. (Fauci's lockdown would never make the virus go away.)
Shutdown now / Virus later means more damage throughout society and perhaps the same amount of deaths. Virus now for the low risk group has the potential for a much better overall outcome once you manage the hospital beds.
Please don't even begin to think you know what what to think... or try to judge my view unless you read this paper and understand it.
This comes from one of the best modelers in the world.
He explains after a temporary lockdown letting the low risk group out is likely to have much better overall outcomes since the deaths will be close to the same in the Covid group and you may save deaths overall. (plus you save massive financial and other types of harm.)
Targeted limited lockdowns are the proper way to handle this virus.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3579712
...
Six weeks after becoming a pandemic, COVID-19 has caused over 150,000 deaths across 210 countries. Governments around the world have instituted universal lockdowns to curve the spread of this serious disease. While it is obvious that extended universal lockdowns have saved lives that otherwise would have been lost to COVID-19, they have also caused historical losses of livelihoods. Universal lockdowns are particularly detrimental to minorities and the working class, who have suffered the greatest job loss since the Great Depression. In some countries, unemployment carries the loss of access to health services, which is the opposite of what lockdowns intended to achieve. Hundreds of millions of citizens worldwide will endure the effects of universal lockdowns for years to come.
Universal lockdowns are a blunt tool that should be used tactically, for brief periods of time. In this study, we introduce a new mathematical model (called K-SEIR) to simulate the outcomes of lockdowns, and help evaluate various exit strategies. We demonstrate that targeted lockdowns can achieve better outcomes than universal lockdowns, in terms of (1) saving lives, (2) protecting the most vulnerable in society (the elderly, the poor), and (3) preventing the depletion of medical resources.
There is not one solution that fits all. National governments must devise tailored targeted lockdowns, based on their particular circumstances. We hope that the K-SEIR model will help governments learn from the mistakes of the COVID-19 crisis management, and help prepare society for COVID-20.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
1. You don't understand models. The models don't change just because they are two months old. They are frameworks to use in responding to this and future outbreaks of any virus.
2. As the top Swede on on this Anders Tegnell (and many others) explained ... you can't compare outcomes until the countries who are in shutdown come out of shutdown and this is over. The current outbreak we are seeing as we come out of shutdown is exactly one of the reasons why.
[/QUOTE]
So you are promoting a two month old paper from DePrado --- who has already been proven to be a fool when it comes to public health policy.
His policy was tried in Sweden.... it has been a complete disaster. End of story.[/QUOTE]
2. As the top Swede on on this Anders Tegnell (and many others) explained ... you can't compare outcomes until the countries who are in shutdown come out of shutdown and this is over. The current outbreak we are seeing as we come out of shutdown is exactly one of the reasons why.
[/QUOTE]
So you are promoting a two month old paper from DePrado --- who has already been proven to be a fool when it comes to public health policy.
His policy was tried in Sweden.... it has been a complete disaster. End of story.[/QUOTE]
Let me ask you something GWB.
If total lockdown for six months month today could save the 20 people from dying of Covid ... but cost the lives of 19 people...and cause dozens more to have all sorts of mental and emotional issues and drug and alcohol dependencies and cost 30 million americans their jobs and businesses - which result would you (society) choose ?
Now change the numbers... save 10 lives from Covid but cost 20 lives overall.
Do you know understand the point of de Prado's models.
At some point the harm you are saving from Covid does more overall harm. He created models to help govt... conceptualize how to balance the shutdown and the harm.
His models can never be discredited... they can be refined... the weighting and data can be changed. But the models are always going to good.
In short have no business commenting on this if you can't see that.
If total lockdown for six months month today could save the 20 people from dying of Covid ... but cost the lives of 19 people...and cause dozens more to have all sorts of mental and emotional issues and drug and alcohol dependencies and cost 30 million americans their jobs and businesses - which result would you (society) choose ?
Now change the numbers... save 10 lives from Covid but cost 20 lives overall.
Do you know understand the point of de Prado's models.
At some point the harm you are saving from Covid does more overall harm. He created models to help govt... conceptualize how to balance the shutdown and the harm.
His models can never be discredited... they can be refined... the weighting and data can be changed. But the models are always going to good.
In short have no business commenting on this if you can't see that.
So you are promoting a two month old paper from DePrado --- who has already been proven to be a fool when it comes to public health policy.
His policy was tried in Sweden.... it has been a complete disaster. End of story.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
All the countries that have effectively eliminated COVID-19 have used proper lockdowns along with phased re-openings including proper testing & contract tracing.. Let's look at success stories like New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea. These countries had the smallest economic impact and quickest re-openings.
All the above countries are out of lockdown --- the outcomes are clear. They are the winners in proper public health policy in eliminating COVID to a level where it is a minimal threat to the population.
Countries that failed to lockdown properly like Sweden and Brazil are complete COVID disasters.
End of story.
Reality has debunked de Prados' COVID models. They are crap.
Countries that locked down properly had the smallest economic impact and the fastest re-openings of their societies.
The U.S. never locked down properly. If we did then the country would not be facing the impending disaster that is appearing now.... which will drive millions of more in financial losses since our COVID public health policy led from Trump and the states has for the most part been a complete failure.
Daily Numbers ( so far ) for Jem :
Canada infections 334, deaths 17 pop. 37 millon
California infections 3100, deaths 35 pop. 39 million
US infections 36231, deaths 577 pop 328 million
What I'm noting here is the US infection rate should be 9 times Canada and its 110 times. And if I look back to a week ago, death rates were more similar between the two countries and now the US numbers are trending up. Meaning the kind of death rate improvement one expects at this point and is seeing in Canada is no longer following through in the US now. That unfortunate side effect is not something we can talk about as a futures thing; it's already here a week from the spike up in cases. The worst may not have arrived yet given the natural delay between infections and deaths.
The numbers are getting worse in the US but in particular they are getting worse in states like California, Florida, and Texas. That bumps the numbers up even worse then US national numbers; parts of the US have more similar experiences to Canada.
I suppose posters like Jem can pretend there isn't a problem, say it's part of some master plan. Not what the numbers say. I fully expect a year from now it will be clear a lot of Americans got sick, got long term health issues, or died unnecessarily from this disease. For now, you can pretend it's your plan. A little delusional to do so but it is what it is.
Canada infections 334, deaths 17 pop. 37 millon
California infections 3100, deaths 35 pop. 39 million
US infections 36231, deaths 577 pop 328 million
What I'm noting here is the US infection rate should be 9 times Canada and its 110 times. And if I look back to a week ago, death rates were more similar between the two countries and now the US numbers are trending up. Meaning the kind of death rate improvement one expects at this point and is seeing in Canada is no longer following through in the US now. That unfortunate side effect is not something we can talk about as a futures thing; it's already here a week from the spike up in cases. The worst may not have arrived yet given the natural delay between infections and deaths.
The numbers are getting worse in the US but in particular they are getting worse in states like California, Florida, and Texas. That bumps the numbers up even worse then US national numbers; parts of the US have more similar experiences to Canada.
I suppose posters like Jem can pretend there isn't a problem, say it's part of some master plan. Not what the numbers say. I fully expect a year from now it will be clear a lot of Americans got sick, got long term health issues, or died unnecessarily from this disease. For now, you can pretend it's your plan. A little delusional to do so but it is what it is.
https://news.psu.edu/story/623797/2...ction-rate-may-be-80-times-greater-originally
Initial COVID-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported
New research studies early stages of coronavirus outbreak to re-evaluate rate of initial spread in U.S.
Initial COVID-19 infection rate may be 80 times greater than originally reported
New research studies early stages of coronavirus outbreak to re-evaluate rate of initial spread in U.S.
Having the virus run rampant through the US is not a good thing for Canada; we'd like to see a more responsible approach from parts of the public ( the "Jem"''s of your country ).