Lead Foil Hat wrote:
It has not been studied to death; you like lying though. If it is so easy find it; post it.
Before I do that, let's open it up to the rest of the class.
Who else here is unable to find studies on the effectiveness of lockdowns? Is anyone else here as bad at Googling as Lead Foil Hat?
Fat hurts wrote:
brazen2 wrote:
https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238456/centralized-isolation-coronavirus-hong-kong-koreaEast Asian countries were way ahead of much of the West in adopting widespread mask-wearing as a means to reduce transmission of the coronavirus.
But there’s something else Asian countries do to control the spread that seems almost unthinkable in the United States: centralized isolation of people who test positive for Covid-19 and their close contacts.
ou don’t tell sick people to go home where they can infect their families and roommates; you send them someplace set aside for the purpose.
Hong Kong has more metro riders than New York in a city with a similar population size and significantly fewer miles of track. And while Hong Kong has a lower overall population density than New York City, that’s because nearly 40 percent of the territory is composed of designated country parks that are free of development. The built-up portion of Hong Kong is hyper-dense, and the average apartment is smaller than 500 square feet.
But despite these factors and very close economic linkages to China, Hong Kong contained the crisis — not just with tests but with centralized isolation.
Wear a mask
Social distance
Wash your hands
GET TESTED
So you support centralized isolation?
I agree with you, but I don't think it would ever fly here in America.
However, some colleges are planning to give it a try this fall for students that test positive.
This is just quarantining of sick people and those with known exposure away from healthy people; why does it need to be centralized, why do you need to rename it; it is a standard quarantine, which should have been better promoted in the US and a major cause of elderly death in the NY where Cuomo insisted on sending the recently sick back into the healthy homes. This basic premise works, yes, unlike your false claim that lock downs of the healthy population are effective.
25 deaths reported
4200+ new positives reported
positivity takes a jump up
Wear a mask
Social distance
Wash your hands
GET TESTED
I think you're misinterpreting. Nobody is advocating lockdowns once you have the virus under control. The idea is that when cases are growing and the problem is deepening, you lock down until you have the virus contained. This is what many countries in Europe accomplished successfully.
Lead Foil Hat wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
So you support centralized isolation?
I agree with you, but I don't think it would ever fly here in America.
However, some colleges are planning to give it a try this fall for students that test positive.
This is just quarantining of sick people and those with known exposure away from healthy people; why does it need to be centralized, why do you need to rename it; it is a standard quarantine, which should have been better promoted in the US and a major cause of elderly death in the NY where Cuomo insisted on sending the recently sick back into the healthy homes. This basic premise works, yes, unlike your false claim that lock downs of the healthy population are effective.
I take it back, it is your unsupported claim that lock downs work; at least not supported by scientific data, just some experts.....and only some.
7-day average for deaths moving back to early June averages
Wear a mask
Social distance
Wash your hands
GET TESTED
Fat hurts wrote:
brazen2 wrote:
https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238456/centralized-isolation-coronavirus-hong-kong-koreaEast Asian countries were way ahead of much of the West in adopting widespread mask-wearing as a means to reduce transmission of the coronavirus.
But there’s something else Asian countries do to control the spread that seems almost unthinkable in the United States: centralized isolation of people who test positive for Covid-19 and their close contacts.
You don’t tell sick people to go home where they can infect their families and roommates; you send them someplace set aside for the purpose.
Hong Kong has more metro riders than New York in a city with a similar population size and significantly fewer miles of track. And while Hong Kong has a lower overall population density than New York City, that’s because nearly 40 percent of the territory is composed of designated country parks that are free of development. The built-up portion of Hong Kong is hyper-dense, and the average apartment is smaller than 500 square feet.
But despite these factors and very close economic linkages to China, Hong Kong contained the crisis — not just with tests but with centralized isolation.
Wear a mask
Social distance
Wash your hands
GET TESTED
So you support centralized isolation?
I agree with you, but I don't think it would ever fly here in America.
However, some colleges are planning to give it a try this fall for students that test positive.
I have been very clear throughout.
And <Sigh>
Again...
A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"
Wear a mask
Social distance
Wash your hands
GET TESTED
Lead Foil Hat wrote:
Lead Foil Hat wrote:
This is just quarantining of sick people and those with known exposure away from healthy people; why does it need to be centralized, why do you need to rename it; it is a standard quarantine, which should have been better promoted in the US and a major cause of elderly death in the NY where Cuomo insisted on sending the recently sick back into the healthy homes. This basic premise works, yes, unlike your false claim that lock downs of the healthy population are effective.
I take it back, it is your unsupported claim that lock downs work; at least not supported by scientific data, just some experts.....and only some.
Do you really want to admit that you don't know how to use Google?
Come on. You know it's coming. You know I've found lots of studies. You really can't do it?
Also, is there anyone out there who says the question of lockdown efficacy has not been studied? Anyone else besides Lead Foil Hat who can't find the studies and wants to say I'm lying?
No?
Fat hurts wrote:
Lead Foil Hat wrote:
I take it back, it is your unsupported claim that lock downs work; at least not supported by scientific data, just some experts.....and only some.
Do you really want to admit that you don't know how to use Google?
Come on. You know it's coming. You know I've found lots of studies. You really can't do it?
Also, is there anyone out there who says the question of lockdown efficacy has not been studied? Anyone else besides Lead Foil Hat who can't find the studies and wants to say I'm lying?
No?
Troll, and still lying. You can't put up one study that verifies your claim; please, don't bother using the ones than claim that post virus peak correlations with; why would this dude even make this claim during the beginning of the pandemic:
https://fee.org/articles/sweden-s-top-infectious-disease-expert-says-covid-19-lockdowns-are-not-based-on-science-history-shows-he-could-be-right/Why have nearly all of the nations with the strictest forced lockdowns observed the highest rate of per capita death; why is this the same in the US as well. I am not saying the cause of higher death mean lock downs made it worse, but the numbers could be construed that way. Originally people had to dig back to the 1918 flu pandemic and compared two cities with different population densities to make this claim, when likely pop density is really the major issue; in the US the per capita deaths tend almost linearly with regional population density and show only weak correlations of increasing death with increasing lockdown measures. I am not saying they don't have potential to help, many think they do, but the actual evidence is scant up to this virus and now only a mixed bagged of politically biased efforts on both sides.
Lead Foil Hat wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Do you really want to admit that you don't know how to use Google?
Come on. You know it's coming. You know I've found lots of studies. You really can't do it?
Also, is there anyone out there who says the question of lockdown efficacy has not been studied? Anyone else besides Lead Foil Hat who can't find the studies and wants to say I'm lying?
No?
Troll, and still lying. You can't put up one study that verifies your claim; please, don't bother using the ones than claim that post virus peak correlations with; why would this dude even make this claim during the beginning of the pandemic:
https://fee.org/articles/sweden-s-top-infectious-disease-expert-says-covid-19-lockdowns-are-not-based-on-science-history-shows-he-could-be-right/Why have nearly all of the nations with the strictest forced lockdowns observed the highest rate of per capita death; why is this the same in the US as well. I am not saying the cause of higher death mean lock downs made it worse, but the numbers could be construed that way. Originally people had to dig back to the 1918 flu pandemic and compared two cities with different population densities to make this claim, when likely pop density is really the major issue; in the US the per capita deaths tend almost linearly with regional population density and show only weak correlations of increasing death with increasing lockdown measures. I am not saying they don't have potential to help, many think they do, but the actual evidence is scant up to this virus and now only a mixed bagged of politically biased efforts on both sides.
anyone following closely the GA system of reporting? Fats?
I'm looking at the GA state covid site and it doesn't have that 87-person death toll anymore. I know the guvnor has been mucking with the data - I hope they aren't doing anything weird.
Sweden failed in a couple of ways, which even the architect of the plan, who remains fiercely defensive of it, had to admit.
I don't think anything fishy there. They update every day before 3, and the new daily numbers are put in. Their reporting is definitely more over-the-place than just about any state, but the death numbers are staying in the total number.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
I don't think anything fishy there. They update every day before 3, and the new daily numbers are put in. Their reporting is definitely more over-the-place than just about any state, but the death numbers are staying in the total number.
I'm sure you're right...but on their deaths graph it now says that July 22 had 5 deaths, not the 87 they reported.
Maybe there is always a delay on new data getting to their graph.
Fat hurts wrote:
WWRD wrote:
In the grand scheme of things I don't give two sh*ts about Trump, but I do give a damn about this country's future, not the least of which for my kids. And I'm sorry, but between the numbers reported (and the inconsistent and murky definitions of counts), and the way it's being used, generally by the left, to crush the economy and culture of the country, I tend towards that COVID's threat (which I 100% believe is a new virus that has added to what the death toll would have been otherwise) is overblown. That the costs to this country, from it's current course, are going to far outweigh the benefits of fighting it the way we are. And that the groupthink, and bunker mentality, of many we see on here, are classic cases of humans being manipulated, controlled by fear or emotion, not unlike other instances in human history, the most obvious being NAZI Germany.
Invoke the Nazis and you've lost the argument.
Einstein, I in no way invoked Nazis in the sense you implied, only brought up an instance when people were manipulated to such a degree, that being the Germans, by the Nazis. Do I need to explain further? You seem quite a simpleton from your posts, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/architect-of-sweden-coronavirus-strategy-admits-too-many-died-anders-tegnellSweden failed in a couple of ways, which even the architect of the plan, who remains fiercely defensive of it, had to admit.
Of course they should have one more; they did virtually nothing; they should have done much more, but locking the whole country down with strict stay at home orders is not one of the things they should have done; it is not what all of the best performing nations and regions have done....unless you really want to consider NYC a success because they killed everyone and there is nobody left the virus has an appetite for.
agip wrote:
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
I don't think anything fishy there. They update every day before 3, and the new daily numbers are put in. Their reporting is definitely more over-the-place than just about any state, but the death numbers are staying in the total number.
I'm sure you're right...but on their deaths graph it now says that July 22 had 5 deaths, not the 87 they reported.
Maybe there is always a delay on new data getting to their graph.
I suspect that's like Florida where they backdate deaths to when they're recorded to have happened. It's why Florida will report 100 deaths on a given day, but they'll be from deaths going back weeks to the day before. The noise evens out over time.
@lead: I don't think we disagree. Lockdowns should be deployed only as necessary.
Not a good update, mostly on the positive % rate. Hopefully there's some error in that because if not we might be looking at ~1000+ deaths a day for weeks, not days (this is now the third straight day).
agip wrote:
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
I don't think anything fishy there. They update every day before 3, and the new daily numbers are put in. Their reporting is definitely more over-the-place than just about any state, but the death numbers are staying in the total number.
I'm sure you're right...but on their deaths graph it now says that July 22 had 5 deaths, not the 87 they reported.
Maybe there is always a delay on new data getting to their graph.
Georgia does not report the way other states do - more epidemiological approach. Deaths are attributed to day of death. If that information is not available, it is attributed to the day data was received. Makes analysis more accurate. If any data is updated, it is corrected.
Jul22 had 81 deaths reported.
For example:
5 were attributed to Jul21,
12 to Jul20,
4 to Jul19
4 to Jul18 and so on.
For Jul22 data, 27 of the deaths were attributed to Jul01-Jul10.
The data is far more accurate than just reporting all the data on the day it was received.
Wear a mask
Social distance
Wash your hands
GET TESTED
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
I think you're misinterpreting. Nobody is advocating lockdowns once you have the virus under control. The idea is that when cases are growing and the problem is deepening, you lock down until you have the virus contained. This is what many countries in Europe accomplished successfully.
Certainty continued lockdowns are bad, but even early on, the best perforners did not do so, the best performers had a targeted approach.....etc. No Scandinavian nation had a forced lockdown, Italy did and NYC did and it was horrible. PA, NJ, CT, Belgium, France....on and on all forcefully over aggressively locked down. Encouraging work form home and social distancing and promoting safe practices in businesses is not the same and should have been the norm over shutting businesses down and telling people they have to stay inside, which was doen in some of the worst places. There never should have been mandated lockdowns anywhere; targeted quaratines, testing, promoting good behavior, but allowing mobility and healthy activity and reasonable commerce should have happened everywhere and ther is no evidence that these strict lockdowns actually helped overtaking reasonable less draconian precautions. The worst part is the same actors are now crying foul on the regions that did little and had success and are seeing much milder outbreaks than what was observed in lockdown states. I am am glad you can state though that prolonged lock down is not good. We should not lock down for this virus again. The gains are not evident and if they are that minimal they are not worth the cost.