Coronavirus is inevitable so why the useless containment

Not sure why you quotes what I wrote as you’re just spewing your opinion, but not really directed at me.

Do you have any reading comprehension as I stated that comparisons to Kobe’s death and 9/11 was about this being shocking and unexpected. I really don’t think you read any of what I posted but decided to quote it which shows you are pretty bad with commenting on message boards. Probably means you have low social skills.

I’m not stating at all that coronavirus is not serious. I’m making a case that effort of containment has been useless as we are making efforts, but so many holes in the effort that it’s been useless. For example, Work from Home policies: so, people are not going to work but still going to Costco and hanging out at Starbucks. Just now, since it was sunny day in Seattle, the street near my house at Alki was very crowded and all of the bars full. This is at the epicenter of the spread in US and people are just out and about. Waiting until someone is ill to be quarantined has been ineffective as the virus can spread when people show no symptoms. Virus has been circulating in Seattle probably since mid February. For example, the guy who tested positive who works at Amazon, he was immediately sent home on 2/25 since he started to get sick at work! So, he spread it to everyone around him and whoever those people contacted, they have spread. When there is a half effort containment, it has no use as people will interact some way and will spread. If containment is what needs to happen, then it has to be full containment or it’s useless.

Containment will not stop the virus, that's correct. It's past the point of containment and 100% containment is pretty much impossible.

The realistic goal, however, is to slow it down. If tens of thousands get sick all at once, it will overflow hospitals/those seeking care.

If tens of thousands get sick over the course of a few months, it will be much easier to take care of them/other people seeking help or treatment.

RyecorDone wrote:

Survival via hospital care depends on the availability of hospital care. Overloading hospitals leads to unnecessary extra deaths.

Exactly. The more people who go to hospitals, the more people die.

The more that people get treated, the greater their chances of dying.

Because they are dying from the treatments, not from any imaginary virus.

With exponential growth, one of the main factors is the rate of growth. The point of austerity measures is to ensure the pace of the spread is slowed until there is a vaccine.

Math problem:

Let’s say 1 person had the virus today — patient 1.

Let’s say a vaccine will be commercially available in exactly 12 months.

If the virus doubled every day, all 7.7 billion people in the world would have the virus in less than 34 days.

If the virus doubles every week, it would take 225 days for everyone to get it. This is the rate of growth we’re seeing now. It’s doubling in less than a week (outside of China).

If the virus doubles every 3 weeks, in 1 year’s time, less than 200,000 people would have contracted the virus and the vaccine would be ready.

The reason for containment is to slow the growth rate, it makes a big difference.

Another false flag attack wrote:

RyecorDone wrote:

Survival via hospital care depends on the availability of hospital care. Overloading hospitals leads to unnecessary extra deaths.

Exactly. The more people who go to hospitals, the more people die.

The more that people get treated, the greater their chances of dying.

Because they are dying from the treatments, not from any imaginary virus.

If 100 people go to emergency rooms for violent crime wounds, and 10 die, then its because they went to the emergency room?

There is no need to contain it or slow it down either. The only time the health system was unable to cope was at its point of origin in Hubei province, where more than half the cases and more than 75% of the deaths occurred. The Chinese freaked out on the assumption that it might be more contagious than it actually turned out to be. That's what led to the economic chaos and hype, not the virus itself, which sickened barely one in 1000 of the province's people and killed about 1 in 30,000.

In country after country, it has been present longer than it was when Hubei was freaking out, and seen rapid growth in only three: Iran, South Korea and Italy. As with China, that growth appears self-limiting as the slope flattens out on a logarithmic Y-scale.

Now the hordes of people jacking off to this slightly-dangerous plague are whining nonstop about not having test kits. What difference would those make? The emerging pattern of positive tests in people who can't figure out where they were exposed drives home the point that there are obviously many infected people out there who don't know it, likely because their symptoms are mild or nonexistent. Are you going to buy 300 million kits and test everybody? Does testing the sick change their prognosis or treatment? Do what can be done: get people to be careful and minimize the risk of catching it, exactly what they're already doing.

And they're repeating that simple thing, over and over, cover your cough and wash your hands, because a simple mantra gives panicked morons something to hold onto other than their own fear-aroused genitals. It's how you calm a crowd.

Bad Wigins wrote:

a simple mantra gives panicked morons something to hold onto other than their own fear-aroused genitals. It's how you calm a crowd.

You're not very bright.

Do you think there will be more deaths from this corona virus than from yearly flu two years from now? Let me know if you are a health expert.

Another false flag attack wrote:

No one in the entire world who has not been diagnosed and treated for the corona virus has died from it.

wtfbbq wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

a simple mantra gives panicked morons something to hold onto other than their own fear-aroused genitals. It's how you calm a crowd.

You're not very bright.

You're not even trying.

Okay, this is how it's gonna be: every thread populated by this sort of loser is gonna be taken over by me, page after page of solid arguments and facts. I will leave none unattended until the disease in your panicked minds is safely contained by a blizzard of facts .

He doesn’t have to try. You’ve outed yourself as a person unable to think critically. Your statement:

Bad Wigins wrote:

There is no need to contain it or slow it down either.

If the coronavirus does need to be contained or slowed, this means:

1. Not 1 person should have been quarantined

2. There should be no extra guidance to wash your hands

3. There should be no guidance to limit facial touching

4. Elderly populations and nursing homes should allow patrons to flow in & out business as usual

5. (More)

You’re essentially saying leave the virus untended to and let the chips fall where they may. If that’s not what you intended to articulate, rewrite your opening sentence so that it makes sense and then we all can have a real conversation. Otherwise, sounds like Forest Gump’s Guide to Debating Coronavirus.

Does not**

#Covid19 ITALY- “We have been locked in the house with my DEAD sister for 24 hours." "We have been waiting for 24 hours for the outcome of the #Coronavirus swap - explains Luca- nobody told us anything and we are completely abandoned to ourselves" #ITALIA

https://twitter.com/katieoneill_/status/1236802487908216835?s=21

Here's a coronavirus experiment that was done on mice at the University of Iowa approximately 12 years ago.

The cause of death in the mice was --> injection <-- of the virus.

https://jvi.asm.org/content/82/15/7264

More evidence:

The latest developments come a day after two earlier deaths in Washington state were blamed on COVID-19, the pneumonia-like disease caused by the new virus. A patient in his 50s who was being treated at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle and a woman in her 80s who was never hospitalized died from coronavirus on Feb. 26, but their cause of death wasn’t known until test results came back positive this week.

How could they not know the cause of death for a week????

Yeah, they're blaming the virus, but what was the cause of death????

There has to be a reason, and they're not saying what the reason is, which is quite suspicious.

Note also, the people died AFTER being treated, which probably means that they were injected with something.

math is great wrote:

He doesn’t have to try. You’ve outed yourself as a person unable to think critically. Your statement:

Bad Wigins wrote:

There is no need to contain it or slow it down either.

If the coronavirus does need to be contained or slowed, this means:

1. Not 1 person should have been quarantined

2. There should be no extra guidance to wash your hands

3. There should be no guidance to limit facial touching

4. Elderly populations and nursing homes should allow patrons to flow in & out business as usual

No, it doesn't. You're constructing a straw man and arguing to intent, mr/ms "critical thinker." You're a terrible debater but still a useful foil.

part 4 of your straw man is the key to your fallacy. What percentage of the population is in nursing homes? Preventing a disease from getting INTO something is the opposite of trying, in vain, to stop it from getting OUT of something. Not "containment." And it makes no difference how fast it spreads elsewhere.

If you go back and reread my entire post, you'll discover that there's another purpose for the hand washing: calm people down and make them FEEL safe. It won't help if you get coughed on, and the medics still expect it to sweep through the general population. Even if it manages to slow it down, it's not necessary, because it is already NOT SPREADING FAST. In more than three months it has still caused only 110,000 cases and killed fewer than 4000 people in the entire world. IF the world's health care systems were having trouble dealing with treating the sick, as Wuhan did early on, it might need to be slowed down, but that's not happening on the large scale. What they're having trouble with is the crazy logistics of attempting containment.

Since containment is impossible, and even attempting it has caused economic chaos, shift focus to shielding the vulnerable - reverse quarantine. Then let it run its course as quickly as possible and get the whole thing over with. The longer it's out in the wild, with resources being wasted trying to contain it, the longer the elderly and sick will be in danger.

Testimony of a surgeon working in Bergamo, in the heart of Italy's coronavirus outbreak:

"Exams, radiology always with the same sentence: bilateral interstitial pneumonia. All needs to be hospitalized. Some already needs to be intubated, and goes to the ICU. For others, however, it is late. ICU is full, and when ICUs are full, more are created. Each ventilator is like gold . . ."

bettingodds wrote:

No one freaked out this much for the bad coronavirus in 2003 or so.

This one seems slightly worse. Not by too much.

No, SARS was worse, more obvious symptoms, quicker symptoms and more deaths. That equals slower spreading.

bettingodds wrote:

People take less precaution for HIV.

They do now because of the containment measures, plus HIV is harder to catch and the type of drugs they are on now makes it harder to infect someone

Both your analogies are incorrect

certainly seems inevitable now as I sit at my desk with a colleague in the office next door (just back from skiing in Italy) coughing incessantly.