Harambe wrote:
scare 'em with death counts wrote:
No you don't get it do you?
(Because you don't have one) You're a conspiracy theorist
There you go again with your twisted agenda.
Harambe wrote:
scare 'em with death counts wrote:
No you don't get it do you?
(Because you don't have one) You're a conspiracy theorist
There you go again with your twisted agenda.
Hmmmmm. The article was posted 10/20/20. The magazine endorsed Joe Biden on 9/15/20. No credibility issue there.
200,000 plus may have died WITH COVID, but they didn't die OF COVID. That will bear out in future studies after the politics of it die down.
There was a study in Florida about questionable COVID death diagnoses. One in particular was a motorcycle crash. The driver died after being transported to the hospital. He tested positive and was listed as a COVID death. When the Dr was interviewed and questioned about listing it as a COVID death, his answer was one, "could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash."
Thats the BS that surrounds COVID when there is a financial incentive to have positive tests.
Indeed France and Germany had the virus under control for a period of months, although in France's case, their initial breakout was so bad that it took even the US, in its near-nonexistent mitigation state, months to catch up in terms of per capita deaths.
The problem isn't that they didn't have the virus under control. It's that once they attempted to reopen, the virus quickly ran rampant. What Europe's situation has basically revealed is that even when the virus is nearly eradicated, it can return and roar back to life in a matter of weeks (similar situations occurred in Israel, Japan, etc.). This is extremely bad, because it has revealed to almost everyone that controlling it via lockdown is only a stalling measure rather than a solution.
The virus is, bluntly speaking, not deadly enough. The mortality rate is so low that too large a portion of the population doesn't take it seriously. Western Countries provide a large amount of freedom for their citizens, but as a result, it is impossible to properly manage a situation like this. France, Spain, Germany, UK, etc. now know that in order to maintain low virus numbers, they must continued indefinite lockdown. But they can't maintain indefinite lockdown, because now everyone knows that all it did was stall the huge breakouts. Their populations are too heterogeneous, and many of the leaders know that they will not agree to an indefinite quarantine situation (hence Merkel, weeks ago, indicating that she absolutely wanted to avoid another lockdown). If people refuse to comply, they can't actually do anything. Spain for example, had a large number of anti-lockdown protests. Those protests were likely spreading the virus, but the government couldn't do much because the citizens have the right to protest.
Yeah, the answer seems to be you have a thread a needle with tolerable restrictions on large groups, indoor gathering, and other high risk activities. You need good testing and tracing to slow outbreaks when they do happen. And you need very good compliance for isolation, masking, and getting tested. Even then it's not perfect, although having to control an outbreak that takes you from <0.5 deaths per million to 2 (or equivalent cases) is much easier than one from 2 to 4, etc. Outbreaks aren't necessarily a sign of total failure if they are relatively rapidly controlled. Obviously we will see how the "best' European countries do in the coming weeks.
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?
Why's it cost every household $5000 in taxes just to run a public school?