What's the solution.
Keep everyone in lockdown forever?
Until someone comes up with an untested vaccine and require everyone to take it?
All of the major outbreaks of this virus took place indoors...mostly nursing homes.
Open the damn beaches, ball fields, courts, etc.
PaulG wrote:
Every person in Georgia could be positive. The question is whether Georgia’s hospitals are overwhelmed. Wasn’t that the primary goal of the lockdown? Since you don’t care to dig them up, here are the hospital bed numbers from Georgia. Do you consider this a total disaster?
State of Georgia Bed Capacity
ER Beds in Use: 1,159
ER Bed Availability: 2,189
Critical Care Beds in Use: 2,032
Critical Care Bed Availability: 879
Inpatient Beds in Use: 9,956
Inpatient Bed Availability: 5,214
https://elink.clickdimensions.com/m/1/68680496/02-b20147-7e385d889c65426e88daf5e30fe601d9/4/580/d871a0f7-dfbf-4251-a322-09686fc62908
We don't know yet. Most of the people in the hospital right now were infected before reopening or soon after. The current good hospital numbers just mean that the lockdown was working.
But now that infections are spiking, the hospital numbers will go up again and deaths will go up as well.
And as I've been saying before, we don't know for sure that a spike is really happening. But it sure looks that way.
States are already planning tax hikes to add insult to serious injury
Giles Corey wrote:
https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/34-states-had-higher-death-rate-from-2018-flu-than-coronavirus/?fbclid=IwAR3m5Am8gd5HnOTd2mVvwFxxNsXAW6XTjU_XOgvCK_CfwZlTEB7lcedrFaM
And? What does flu have to do with anything?
Did the people who died during 9/11 not matter because 3500 die of flu in Texas? Was the Indian Ocean tsunami not worthy of news coverage because 2500 people die of flu in Ohio? Was the response to Katrina an overreaction because 35,000 Americans died of flu in 2005?
Once again I am struck by just how many people don't seem to understand that the REASON you don't know anyone who was hospitalized/killed by COVID-19 is *because* of the lockdowns.
That early "2.2 million" estimate that everyone is throwing around now was based on no action being taken against the spread of the virus. But action *was* taken: not early enough, not enough then or now, but *some* action. And it's why we're talking about (horrendous) death totals in the low six figures, rather than the low seven figures.
How do people not get that?
Giles Corey wrote:
https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/34-states-had-higher-death-rate-from-2018-flu-than-coronavirus/?fbclid=IwAR3m5Am8gd5HnOTd2mVvwFxxNsXAW6XTjU_XOgvCK_CfwZlTEB7lcedrFaM
So this is comparing 3 months of coronavirus to all flu deaths from 12 months of an unusually deadly flu year?
And 16 states still have a higher death toll?
Nice comparison.
Giles Corey wrote:
What's the solution.
Keep everyone in lockdown forever?
Until someone comes up with an untested vaccine and require everyone to take it?
All of the major outbreaks of this virus took place indoors...mostly nursing homes.
Open the damn beaches, ball fields, courts, etc.
As I said before, the way to beat this is to do what other nations have done:
1) Shut it down
2) Stop the spread
3) Test and trace
That's how you save lives and get the economy back to full speed as quickly as possible.
[quote]kibitzer wrote:
Once again I am struck by just how many people don't seem to understand that the REASON you don't know anyone who was hospitalized/killed by COVID-19 is *because* of the lockdowns.
That's not a fact. Merely speculation.
One other major possibility is that the COVID-19 is not the monster the media has portrayed it to be.
Yeah, I actually do know one person that's died and two people who were badly hospitalized. They are/were all in their 50s with children in their 20s. These are not frail, elderly people who didn't have much life left in them.
I can imagine without stay-at-home it could have been much worse. Remember of those that die there's an average of 23 days between contracting the virus and death so the people who died yesterday were likely infected in early May.
This reminds me of Y2K computer glitch - companies spent $$ protecting their infrastructure and when nothing major happened people called it a hoax . Err... yeah because we mitigated. We'll never really know the impact - we can only estimate.
Historically respiratory disease epidemics have always had more than one spike. That's doesn't guarantee that it'll happen this time, but it's suggestive...
Giles Corey wrote:
One other major possibility is that the COVID-19 is not the monster the media has portrayed it to be.
Excuse me you've not answered my question from earlier about the media. You've very conveniently changed the topic to talk about another irrelevant point.
appleswan wrote:
But if Murdoch wants a lockdown why are pundits like the one you posted appearing on his channel calling it "insanity" and saying "it's causing panic and reckless moral judgement"?
Ok so what’s your implication? Should Georgia re-instate a lockdown until the second spike is over?
The spike in Georgia didn't happen. Once it was clear the infections weren't spiking in Georgia, in came the excuse from the critics that they were faking the numbers. That excuse didn't hold water because there have always been plenty of sources where you can get accurate numbers on reported infections, and there is no incentive to cover up a nonexistent spike.
Fat hurts wrote:
Giles Corey wrote:
What's the solution.
Keep everyone in lockdown forever?
Until someone comes up with an untested vaccine and require everyone to take it?
All of the major outbreaks of this virus took place indoors...mostly nursing homes.
Open the damn beaches, ball fields, courts, etc.
As I said before, the way to beat this is to do what other nations have done:
1) Shut it down
2) Stop the spread
3) Test and trace
That's how you save lives and get the economy back to full speed as quickly as possible.
What good does that do?
Death rate for under age 80 with no comorbidities is minuscule.
Give us back our damn lives.
By the way, what happened to flattening the curve?
appleswan wrote:
Giles Corey wrote:
One other major possibility is that the COVID-19 is not the monster the media has portrayed it to be.
Excuse me you've not answered my question from earlier about the media. You've very conveniently changed the topic to talk about another irrelevant point.
appleswan wrote:
But if Murdoch wants a lockdown why are pundits like the one you posted appearing on his channel calling it "insanity" and saying "it's causing panic and reckless moral judgement"?
No idea what you are on about. I was replying to someone else who asserted the only reason so many of us do not know anyone who has been sick with Covid is the lockdowns. I noted that is not a fact. merely speculation.
Giles Corey wrote:
What's the solution.
Keep everyone in lockdown forever?
Until someone comes up with an untested vaccine and require everyone to take it?
All of the major outbreaks of this virus took place indoors...mostly nursing homes.
Open the damn beaches, ball fields, courts, etc.
There have been numerous examples of how to beat COVID 19 and get to a point were re-opening can be done while preventing spikes in new cases. The main characteristics of how to win against the virus are early intervention, testing, tracing and isolation of positives, social distancing practices in place until the rate of new positives is negligible and a very gradual re-opening with good social distancing practices (mask wearing, no large gatherings, etc.). The problem in the United States is that with the exception of maybe parts of the West Coast and small states, most of the country was either too late in responding (NY, Louisiana, etc.) or responded just in time with weak measure and re-opened too early (Texas, Florida, GA, etc.). In those situations, the only way to win against the virus is a strict lockdown for about six weeks.
https://www.endcoronavirus.org/countriesOkay I'll bump you're memory:
Giles Corey wrote:
appleswan wrote:
Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
His company owns The London Times, The Sun, The Wall Street Journal and the NY Post. He also owns the two most read Australian papers. Rupert Murdoch companies also run entertainment and sports television and radio channels globally - programs which are more difficult to create if there's a lock-down.
Newspapers have seen a massive drop in circulation due to the lock-down. Not only is this a problem in itself for him but it threatens his influence as newspaper journalism is still widely used by broadcast media for a steer on their news.
Remind me again why he would want a lock-down?
How many effin trillions of $$ have to go to the top 1/10th of 1% before you understand why he would want a lockdown? You guys will remain in denial all the way
So don't talk about media portrayal of COVID unless you can tell me why Rupert Murdoch would want a lock-down.
Giles Corey wrote:
One other major possibility is that the COVID-19 is not the monster the media has portrayed it to be.
appleswan wrote:
Okay I'll bump you're memory:
Giles Corey wrote:
How many effin trillions of $$ have to go to the top 1/10th of 1% before you understand why he would want a lockdown? You guys will remain in denial all the way
So don't talk about media portrayal of COVID unless you can tell me why Rupert Murdoch would want a lock-down.
Giles Corey wrote:
One other major possibility is that the COVID-19 is not the monster the media has portrayed it to be.
Because he’s a global elite!!!111!!!!!
He wants to enslave us!!!!1111!!!!
Spyke wrote:
Because he’s a global elite!!!111!!!!!
He wants to enslave us!!!!1111!!!!
It's funny because I agree that the media's influence on democracy can be negative and Rupert Murdoch is a problem - he tells people what they want to hear and fans the flames of their prejudices until there's a fire. He does this to appear he sides with the ordinary man and discredit opponents as out-of-touch.
Giles is probably on Br€itbart now looking for an answer to why Murdoch's in favor of lock-downs.