Pardon me for asking you to simply listen to something and think for yourself.
|
Pardon me for asking you to simply listen to something and think for yourself.
I did listen to your link, fact checked it for background and evaluated it's accuracy for myself. Standard for my posts and responses. Sorry I disagree with you yet again based on facts and not just feelings. Deal with it!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Could you elaborate on those facts?
This member of the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank, has his own biases, which makes your non partisan statement suspect, if not biased, on your part. .
Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
While true that doesn't have anything to do with the illness itself, the severity or the hospitalization that will be needed. Nor the infectability of the asymptomatic, or being able to predict exactly who will die if infected.
Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
Agree that should be the focus, but doesn't guarantee elimination of hospital overcrowding but slowly the rates of infections by people staying at home and closing potential infection points like stores, schools and large events is credited with less infections and the overwhelming of hospitals so far.
Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
We don't know that as a fact and it's a hope at best, but the isolation policies was meant to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed which is more important I think than hoping we get herd immunity. Even now we don't know if people have that immunity.
Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
No evidence of that so until it is not a credible scientific statement
Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.
We may have good credible evidence of high risk of dying but everyone is subject to serious illness and that's not so defined, nor are there any tests to define it clearly.
That's just a start JL, there may be more coming soon as time permits.
Hmm. Well, I looked for the place where you had evidence that contradicted his statement. Didn't find it.
I'll be waiting for the more agreement to come.Quote:
Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
While true that doesn't have anything to do with the illness itself, the severity or the hospitalization that will be needed. Nor the infectability of the asymptomatic, or being able to predict exactly who will die if infected.
Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
Agree that should be the focus, but doesn't guarantee elimination of hospital overcrowding but slowly the rates of infections by people staying at home and closing potential infection points like stores, schools and large events is credited with less infections and the overwhelming of hospitals so far.
Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
We don't know that as a fact and it's a hope at best, but the isolation policies was meant to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed which is more important I think than hoping we get herd immunity. Even now we don't know if people have that immunity.
Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
No evidence of that so until it is not a credible scientific statement. What? You're not aware of the multitude of med procedures that have postponed, and the fact that some of those postponements have resulted in the death of the patient?
Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.
We may have good credible evidence of high risk of dying but everyone is subject to serious illness and that's not so defined, nor are there any tests to define it clearly.
That's just a start JL, there may be more coming soon as time permits.
I'll save you the trouble. Whatever Fauci and Birx says I will agree. Just today the FDA released stricter guidelines for the testing in all the categories because of the lousy results some are producing. Worth noting also, while most of the states are in the process or have limited openings, NONE have met the 14 day thresh hold of downward trend infections, hospitalizations, or deaths, as set out as guidelines by the CDC. In some states like Georgia, quite the opposite is happening.
I hope this works out I really do, but you know how that goes, hope for the best but plan for the worst.
I understand that. It's a dilemma for sure.
Working on sheetrock the next two days. Have I ever mentioned how much I hate working on sheetrock? The business of cutting the holes for the boxes to go into is especially aggravating. This is, I hope, the final wall of our house I'll have to deal with.
I go out everyday, morning only, wave at neighbors from a distance so I understand the need for outdoors by many. Nothing like a shave, haircut bueaty shop to feel much better I understand that too. I LOVE THE BEACH! Lived on one and raised kids there back in the day and feeding gulls in winter was a date for me and the wife. I know how hard this stay at home is. Got peeps in nursing homes and senior living facillities. No VISITS! Can't see the GKids! Calls only.
You think I don't want my life back?
I hate sheetrock too!
It's not so much the stay at home. That's not fun, but it's the destroying of our economy that must be stopped. Everything has a cost.
Yes it is for sure. How many people will you sacrifice to save the economy? Did we not learn the lesson of the 1917 pandemic, and the subsequent ones? Sure we have, just a matter of doing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_pandemic
The main ways available to tackle a flu pandemic initially are behavioural. Doing so requires a good public health communication strategy and the ability to track public concerns, attitudes and behaviour. For example, the Flu TElephone Survey Template (FluTEST) was developed for the UK Department of Health as a set of questions for use in national surveys during a flu pandemic.[89]
- Social distancing: By traveling less, working from home or closing schools, there is less opportunity for the virus to spread. Reduce the time spent in crowded settings if possible. And keep your distance (preferably at least 1 metre) from people who show symptoms of influenza-like illness, such as coughing and sneezing.[90] However, social distancing during a pandemic flu will likely carry severe mental health consequences; therefore, sequestration protocols should take mental health issues into consideration.[91]
- Respiratory hygiene: Advise people to cover their coughs and sneezes. If using a tissue, make sure you dispose of it carefully and then clean your hands immediately afterwards. (See "Handwashing Hygiene" below.) If you do not have a tissue handy when you cough or sneeze, cover your mouth as much as possible with the crook of your elbow.[90]
- Handwashing hygiene: Frequent handwashing with soap and water (or with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer) is very important, especially after coughing or sneezing, and after contact with other people or with potentially contaminated surfaces (such as handrails, shared utensils, etc.)[92]
- Other hygiene: Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth as much as possible.[90]
- Masks: No mask can provide a perfect barrier, but products that meet or exceed the NIOSH N95 standard recommended by the World Health Organization are thought to provide good protection. WHO recommends that health-care workers wear N95 masks and that patients wear surgical masks (which may prevent respiratory secretions from becoming airborne).[93] Any mask may be useful to remind the wearer not to touch the face. This can reduce infection due to contact with contaminated surfaces, especially in crowded public places where coughing or sneezing people have no way of washing their hands. The mask itself can become contaminated and must be handled as medical waste when removed.
- Risk communication: To encourage the public to comply with strategies to reduce the spread of disease, "communications regarding possible community interventions [such as requiring sick people to stay home from work, closing schools] for pandemic influenza that flow from the federal government to communities and from community leaders to the public not overstate the level of confidence or certainty in the effectiveness of these measures."[94]
Or we forget the past lessons and repeat the mistakes.
all wonderful lessons, but the young don't respond, they are invulnerable like Achilles
Some of the old coots don't respond well either Clete. I mean how do you ease restrictions when infections and deaths are rising?
Do you realize we could save 40 thousand lives a year just by eliminating cars? Are you for that? If not, then why do you value your convenient transportation over the lives of 40 thousand people a year?Quote:
Yes it is for sure. How many people will you sacrifice to save the economy?
Logically you don't, you exercise patience, which may only mean a week or two until the worst is over, this thing seems to run for about three months and then subsideQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
yes and you will save an equal number by eliminating guns, but that's logical, and no amount of logic will prevailQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you realize we are approaching almost twice that many deaths in just a few months? This virus is already outpacing other causes of death in this country. Will you say the same thing after 100,000 deaths? If it hits someone close to you? Ain't no fun feeling scared and helpless like those meat packing workers, or first responders like transit, grocery, cops, emt's, nurse, and doctors, you know essentials, who see death every day, and risking dying themselves.
You want to stop making cars, go ahead, I'm with you.
You trying to incite a riot? Gun deaths don't count.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I don't think there is any avoiding loss of life with this virus. New York City is locked down pretty tightly but they are having more deaths than anyone. I do think there is something to be said for learning to walk through this smartly. If this economy goes south, then the suffering will be amplified. I imagine that if your retirement income is cut by 50%, then you'll be at the head of the "Reopen the Economy" protest in your town. It's easy to take a stand for life when it is costing you nothing. And while you're at it, what about the 900,000 abortion deaths a year that you seem to care nothing about?
Talk's cheap.Quote:
You want to stop making cars, go ahead, I'm with you.
apparently notQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Are you suggesting along with Walsh that we do nothing about this pandemic just let people get sick and die because we kill babies? I think as people rush to save the economy and ignore the virus, we lose people and the economy. The virus is the problem, not the economy.
The point of the guy's statement is that it is the pinnacle of hypocrisy to claim to be so concerned about life that we will basically enter into another Great Depression to (we think) avoid loss of life while standing idly by, year after year, while nearly a million human beings are killed and tossed aside as so much garbage every single year. I think his point is valid. People who vote for those who delight in abortion (as dems do) can't profess to be occupying any moral high ground.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 PM. |