I think social distancing does "eliminate" cases of covid 19...check my logic and give input

"They’ve been saying asymptomatic could spread for months."

That's not at all what "they" have been saying for months. In early March they said the main driver was symptomatic people. Then weeks later it was mostly asymptomatic people. Now they say, and listen closely, asymptomatic people may, spread it.

They don't know (and that's troubling in a number of ways). But if it's true that it's only symptomatic people then it is best to only isolate people with symptoms.

You idiots are not smart and still cannot read. If they are "social distancing" and still doing all the things I listed, they are not social distancing. If they are locked in their house, but still getting deliveries from people that are not locked in their house, please explain to me what the benefit is?

Wait until you see the results of antibody testing, you may then understand how widespread it is and has been. Social distancing does nothing because it's already widely spread.

I now believe social distancing may have made it worse. Symptomatic people, who are all or mostly responsible for transmission. have been isolated with non-infected people. They should have been isolated from everyone else.

The situation is changing rapidly. No one knows too much about this particular virus. There are lies spread by the media and politicians plus we live in an oppressive social world, i.e., governments, and elites, so the situation may or may not be at all what you or anyone thinks. Personally I believe since this is a coronavirus it will act accordingly and go away within the next two weeks.

Facts Matter? wrote:

You idiots are not smart and still cannot read. If they are "social distancing" and still doing all the things I listed, they are not social distancing. If they are locked in their house, but still getting deliveries from people that are not locked in their house, please explain to me what the benefit is?

Wait until you see the results of antibody testing, you may then understand how widespread it is and has been. Social distancing does nothing because it's already widely spread.

what they're doing is "social distancing", not "social isolation".

this lady probably has a sh!t immune system, and if she hadn't socially distanced herself, she'd probably be dead. this virus (like all other viruses) are dose-dependent. that's why healthcare professionals are dying like mad, but averageJoe only has sniffles.

we can't say social distancing does nothing because we don't know what outcome we would have had if we didn't socially distance ourselves. we can give our best guesses and model it, but they're really just guesses.

do you work in healthcare, by chance?

You idiots are not smart and still cannot read, and you move the goalposts at your convenience. Social distancing is widely accepted to mean limiting your physical contacts to some significant degree so as to minimize potential for expose. If you want to de facto say anyone infected must not have been social distancing, that is called a tautology. Tautologies are irrelevant.

And if you NOW want to PRETEND that you were saying social distancing is irrelevant because the virus is widespread, that is (1) changing your position completely, (2) backtracking your position on the merits of social distancing, and (3) pure speculation with no support. You have no idea how widespread the virus is, and even if you did, no idea what effect social distancing had on the infection density or will have in the future on infection density. None. None, as in not a clue. And yeah, we will wait to see what your antibody testing discovers, if that ever even happens. But cheer up! Whatever it shows, you can just change your tune to fit whatever you want and then say you told us so.

Facts Matter? wrote:

Wait until you see the results of antibody testing, you may then understand how widespread it is and has been. Social distancing does nothing because it's already widely spread.

This is not just stupid, but has been demonstrated to be false. In the German community of Gangelt that was heavily affected and thoroughly tested, 14% of the population had antibodies, and that may overestimate the figure specifically for COVID-19. See here:

"dose dependent"? I only heard that about a doctor in China. That's really important. There needs to be more coverage about this important fact.

yes

This is called containment. In early stages of pandemics before the number of people infected is too high, this is potentially feasible. This is essentially what was done with Ebola and SARS. New Zealand completely shuttered its borders and has only 1400 cases and is an island. They are trying to do containment there, and maybe it might work with a small island country that has been approaching this aggressively.

If we had shut down all international travel in January and we had widespread, accurate testing, contact tracing, and the means to really enforce federal quarantine (like seriously lock people in their houses), maybe this would be viable, but still it would be unlikely given our population density and amount of travel between states. Now, there are too many people infected for this to be an actual possibility with COVID-19. That coupled with the degree of infectiousness, the long incubation time, and the high number of asymptomatic carriers means that containment just isn't a viable strategy. What we are doing now is what is called mitigation, essentially flattening the curve.

No change of anything, it's always been my position that the predictions were wrong because the virus is not that deadly and that infection is widespread. The number of deaths was always going to be low with or without social distancing AND Social distancing is a joke because of all the reason that I posted in this thread.

Idiots like you are incapable of holding 2 thoughts in your head simultaneously and are incapable of understanding simple concepts. Sorry, no goalposts moved here simpleton.

seryywe wrote:

"dose dependent"? I only heard that about a doctor in China. That's really important. There needs to be more coverage about this important fact.

I posted this earlier, but it discusses the dose/exposure issue. Obviously, with a new virus there’s little definitive data, but with other infections this is shown to be true and another reason social distancing is a good idea, just in case.

real info wrote:

Facts Matter? wrote:

Wait until you see the results of antibody testing, you may then understand how widespread it is and has been. Social distancing does nothing because it's already widely spread.

This is not just stupid, but has been demonstrated to be false. In the German community of Gangelt that was heavily affected and thoroughly tested, 14% of the population had antibodies, and that may overestimate the figure specifically for COVID-19. See here:

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-unpublished-preliminary-findings-looking-at-the-presence-of-antibodies-to-sars-cov-2-virus-in-residents-of-gangelt-in-germany/

Hilarious.

So 14% is not widespread? That's 46.5 million people in the United States. That's also 1 unpublished study. Let's wait for the Stanford Medicine study to become public. Even if it showed the same at 14%, that is a huge number of infected and would only prove that it's less deadly than the flu. Do the math idiot.

seryywe wrote:

"dose dependent"? I only heard that about a doctor in China. That's really important. There needs to be more coverage about this important fact.

It's not a fact.

Simpleton, you changed the goalposts with your own special definition of social distancing -- as one person pointed out, you falsely equate it to social isolation. Once again, concluding that some single person mentioned in an article you read was not practicing social distancing by simple virtue of the fact that they are infected is a tautology - also sometimes known as circular logic, also euphemistically known as moving the goal posts.

And I'm not going to go search the message board for previous comments from a guy who argues like an 8 year old - but HERE in THIS thread, you changed your tune, whether you realize it on not. First it was social distancing doesn't work (which defies common sense), THEN it was social distancing is no longer relevant because of your totally unsupported speculation as to current infection rates making social distancing obsolete. Those are two very different things -- whether it works at all vs. whether it works at certain times. Two different things, simpleton.

it's amazing that the basement-dwelling incel trolls are now the worldwide experts on epidemiology. not a day of medical training and they know all.

You are seriously too stupid to argue with.

Infection rates will be in the double digits. (Thanks "real info" for the German study showing 14%)

Social distancing doesn't work, and there is no scientific evidence that it works.

Even if they were doing it right, it wouldn't work, and they are not doing it right.

Social distancing is not why there are so few deaths, incorrect models and predictions are.

Social distancing is stupid.

You are really stupid.

All those things can be true, and I believe they are. There is nothing inconsistent with that.

Guys let's face it most of the evidence suggests that viruses simply take root in the biosphere, and in the population of whatever organism they affect, and then there's a good chance that you'll get exposed to them if they're being circulated

Let's face it most people have a naive and simplistic understanding of life and they like to paint a simple picture but Immunology our immune system and viruses are really complicated

The fact is that we get exposed to tons of viruses all the time. They are in the air, in the water and on surfaces

Also there's no clear answer to how long viruses stay in people's bodies. And how they are shedded.

It's possible that viruses stay in our body at low levels much more than we realize and that it's basically just a random process if your body will start shedding small amounts of viral particles

I mean I'm just saying it's not really definitive that the illness and the transmission of viruses is as clear-cut as we make it

Anyway I do think you are much more contagious when you initially get a disease and for those first few weeks. But I'm just saying it's not clear if six months later you couldn't also transmit the virus at some low levels. I do think social distancing Works to a degree but things are being over simplified. Let's remember that we also transmit health-promoting viruses to each other. And it's just a basic level of Health that is necessary with interacting and you have to

Anyway it's not healthy to try to sterilize the world or become bubble boys. Our immune systems do best when they interact with the world and it's just the nature of life and reality that if you try to sanitize everything y'all do more harm than good

Let's face it once the hospitals have good capacity we really got to move to getting things back on track.... and let's face it the fact that people want to use Lysol which is a poison that's more harmful than what they're trying to prevent just shows that people's priorities get out of whack what stuff is so poisonous.

ContextisKing wrote:

Anyway it's not healthy to try to sterilize the world or become bubble boys. Our immune systems do best when they interact with the world and it's just the nature of life and reality that if you try to sanitize everything y'all do more harm than good

Let's face it once the hospitals have good capacity we really got to move to getting things back on track.... and let's face it the fact that people want to use Lysol which is a poison that's more harmful than what they're trying to prevent just shows that people's priorities get out of whack what stuff is so poisonous.

No doubt, good stuff! yeah it's unfortunate that so many people believer urban legend and conspiracy nonsense

Imagine how cool it would be if we really had an educated group of people that new basic science. Yeah it's hospitals are getting overwhelmed you have to slow things down and stop the Gatherings. But chances are the virus hit earlier than we realized and a lot more people have been exposed to it already. I personally don't think you're going to see any more big second waves but probably but steadily decreasing amount of illnesses over the next couple of months.

ContextisKing wrote:

[quote]ContextisKing wrote:

Imagine how cool it would be if we really had an educated group of people that new basic science. Yeah it's hospitals are getting overwhelmed you have to slow things down and stop the Gatherings. But chances are the virus hit earlier than we realized and a lot more people have been exposed to it already. I personally don't think you're going to see any more big second waves but probably but steadily decreasing amount of illnesses over the next couple of months.

Hey what the hell you quoting yourself! That's an interesting new strategy. I do kind of agree that it's probably more ubiquitous Than People realize and a lot of people think the social distancing is doing a lot but it probably only had a mild slow down, and I think you're right it probably helps the hospitals but once the hospital show they can deal with things then we got to move forward