How would the coronavirus have played out if we did nothing? similar? 10% worse? 2X worse? 5X worse?

I passed every course I took in medical school. And I got in with a 4.0 GPA in pre-med which only about 1% of medical students get. The reason I left was because I didn't agree with a lot of practices of medicine

It's not that I don't agree with the basic science. I think that about 50% of medical interventions are clearly harmful and about 40% are either harmful or unproductive

Basically about 90 to 95% of medicine is completely unnecessary and the smartest decision you can ever make is to avoid almost all medicine and just live a healthy lifestyle. The most important thing is nutrition an adequate amounts of healthy activities.

I asked the question to stimulate discussion.

Basically it's a trade-off you can argue that some people will be saved as we learn better treatments and possibly come up with antiviral drugs but by flattening the curve ultimately or more people will be exposed

So as with most things I think we actually are doing more harm than good and we would have been more productive taking the sweetest approach

Sorry that should be Swedish approach

Basically I agree with what flatter than you wrote

That wasn't hard to do wrote:

HeroesForGhosts wrote:

At no point have the experts been correct.

argument is over wrote:

honestly, what are you talking about?

they predicted pretty much exactly what has happened so far.

It's not their fault if you don't know how to read a projection.

They predicted that you're a clueless imbecile.

deniers have no real arguments left.

kdkdkdkdk wrote:

[quote]cultural transmission of information not great at complex phenom wrote:

I

With CV19, we have no immunity. I don't believe its "airborne" as you describe but small droplet transmission is similar in many ways and is surely a factor in enclosed spaces. Indeed, the factor I would guess.

This is basically the fairy tale kind of thinking that led me to write the post

sorry I cut out your response but you basically said that we have immunity somewhat to the colds and flus but we have zero immunity to coronavirus and you challenge the notion that it's airborne

So let me reply that it is a hundred percent certain that it is Airborne from multiple studies just check the NIH database

Furthermore it is proven that all respiratory viruses are airborne. just use any basic critical thinking skills viruses are the smallest particles of genetic material we know about

Now it's a fact that bacteria or airborne. Why wouldn't viruses be airborne and able to hover in the air? again this is Fairy Tail thinking and drawing distinctions which make no sense clearly water droplets hover in the air clearly bacteria hover in the air clearly viruses hover in the air date for days on end in indoor environments

and there's no evidence that we have built up immunity to the flu when it mutates better than we have built up immunity to this mutation of the Coronavirus

Show me any studies that say that people have immunity to a mutated version of the flu based on earlier versions of the flu

The fact is that 80% of people who get this have mild or a symptomatic reactions which shows that people already have a lot of natural immunity to this

your response just shows the dumb down bumper sticker type thinking of most of America just thinking according to school system fairy tales about do this and you will be safe do this and you will be safe. No evidence of the actuality of life

argument is over wrote:

That wasn't hard to do wrote:

They predicted that you're a clueless imbecile.

deniers have no real arguments left.

Deniers of what? No one denies there is a virus and that it is dangerous to a small percentage of the population

People just deny the fairytale religious type thinking that people want to Pedal as being legitimate

Virology is complicated. The fact is that people don't always get sick even when they're exposed to a new pathogen

If they did every one-year-old baby would immediately get sick every day from being exposed to pathogens

How come every kid doesn't get tons of diseases one after another. Yes some kids have some immunity from mother's milk but not everyone is breastfed so

The bottom line is how our immune system response to pathogens and how pathogen circulate in a community is very complicated. But people want simple answers

Guaranteed nothing would have been different if we just took the Swedish approach. If anything we would just get hurt immunity faster and less people would die. Maybe better viral drug treatment will offset that and it'll be a draw. Anyway it's been Much Ado About Nothing because people love a boogeyman

argument is over wrote:

That wasn't hard to do wrote:

They predicted that you're a clueless imbecile.

deniers have no real arguments left.

Sure...and paid Democratic trolls keep fearmongering. ?

The better question would have been 'how would covid 19 have played out without the internet being in existence?'

My second question is why does this site let some post anonymously but doesn't let me? I've tried and waited 20+ minutes but it still doesn't allow it. Strange

So do you have an opinion as to your original question or not? You're like that guy at work who can't get to the flippin' point, even when he called the meeting.

Stopwatcher wrote:

I assume you mean if we just carried on and dealt with it like we do the flu every year. Probably would have had 20% higher infection rate across the boards nothing crazy but at least we have had time to develop better treatments and work towards a vaccine

I think you are beyond delusional if you think the infection rate would have only been 20% higher if we just carried on. 200% or 2000% is probably closer to reality. Now a lot of that is just bringing in cases (i.e. we have them over 8 weeks instead of 24 weeks) but there will be some reduction. You can look at what being a week late did to places like NYC versus SF or Seattle as far as the spread.

Now I expect that most people wouldn't have treated it like the flu. I expect most people would have been extra paranoid about any symptoms (see Sweden where despite no formal orders people are still social distancing) and a lot of people would avoid things like eating at restaurants, movies, and so on so we would have ended up in a more hybrid case.

flatter than you wrote:

And less than 1% of hospitals were overwhelmed so I don't think the total death count would be any different at the end.

The krauts we’re charging at is across no man’s land and we mowed them down with machine guns.

Only 1% made it to our lines, so I guess we didn’t need the machine guns after all.

The WHO said 3.4% fatality rate and they haven't decided if there is immunity after the fact despite significant evidence to the contrary. Antibody testing in California, Sweden and Arizona all points to a worst case fatality rate of 0.2%. This is the most overblown reaction ever, for something that is not that fatal.

joedirt wrote:

The WHO said 3.4% fatality rate and they haven't decided if there is immunity after the fact despite significant evidence to the contrary.

False and false.

The WHO said the case fatality rate (CFR) in China in February was 3.4%. They were careful to say that was not the infection fatality rate (IFR). Huge difference between CFR and IFR. When "fatality rate" is being discussed, the convention is that it is the IFR that is of interest. The IFR for coronavirus is estimated by most studies to be between 0.5% to 1%.

The WHO said, several weeks ago, that there was no yet evidence of how long any immunity might last. Because there isn't. It would be impossible to determine the length of immunity 2 months into a pandemic, although our knowledge of epidemiology strongly suggests that any respiratory virus infection will build immunity of some degree (unless it kills you) for around 2 years.

Blackjack Pershing wrote:

flatter than you wrote:

And less than 1% of hospitals were overwhelmed so I don't think the total death count would be any different at the end.

The krauts we’re charging at is across no man’s land and we mowed them down with machine guns.

Only 1% made it to our lines, so I guess we didn’t need the machine guns after all.

This is quite possibly the dumbest analogy I've ever seen.

argument is over wrote:

and if you turn around and say something along the lines of

"they said 2 million!!! where's the 2 million!!"

you're just exposing yourself as dishonest, misinformed or just plain dumb.

It's breathtaking how stupid this argument is.

Let's say:

x - the number of people who would have died if there were no precautions

y - the number of people who did die

z - the number of people who would have died if we moved immediately and decisively, when we knew we had enough information as to what this is

You're arguing that Trump and so on were responsible for saving x-y lives, and that since x didn't happen, we were wrong to shut down. This is incredibly dumb.

Instead, Trump is responsible for costing y-z lives through his incompetence and political posturing.

MidFootStriker wrote:

Sorry that should be Swedish approach

Basically I agree with what flatter than you wrote

Sweden? You mean the country that has 9x the death/1mm ratio as their neighbors Norway and Finland? Yeah, great example. Sign me up for that.

multi wrote:

Tbh, I think the shutdown saved a lot of lives. I think it would have been 10x worse at a minimum if we did nothing.

Yea, and if we hadn't invaded Iraq, it would have become a hotbed for terrorists and there would be 10 more 9/11 attacks, is what the government told us. ?

Victim 45671 wrote:

MidFootStriker wrote:

Sorry that should be Swedish approach

Basically I agree with what flatter than you wrote

Sweden? You mean the country that has 9x the death/1mm ratio as their neighbors Norway and Finland? Yeah, great example. Sign me up for that.

This is exactly the type of idiot answer that made me write the post

You're an idiot!

Sweden has a public transportation system 4 and 10 times as big as its neighbors

Public transportation is everything for spreading this

It's the reason New York has way more cases and deaths then Pennsylvania

Again this type of idiot stuff is so annoying

You're just parroting nonsense and you don't even realize it

And the infection rate in Sweden isn't nearly as comparatively bad as the death rate

Death rate is just the luck of the draw with genetics and demographics.

And the death rate is falling fast in Sweden. It's unfortunate but the vulnerable people are just dying in a shorter time frame. Now Norway is going to be in fear of flare-ups and second waves Sweden won't have any. You're just repeating idiot answers