The Hill: The data is in - stop the panic, end the total isolation

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

1 minute ago, Maleficent said:

in a population sample of 100,000, 0.1% of them required hospitalization (i.e. 100 people out of 100,000). 

My point still stands. I just commented on the wording itself, it wasn't very exact.

 

2 minutes ago, Maleficent said:

there are 2 strains. one that causes a weaker infection, one that results in a stronger one. the weaker strain is more common, and weak enough that infection is not a serious risk. the stronger one can give us herd immunity, but yes, for perhaps a limited time. 

This is not true. So far SARS-CoV-2 is one strain. In fact, it is a strain of SARS-CoV, the other strain being the cause of SARS. There's been a few papers looking at the mutations of SARS-CoV-2 in patients but it's too early to say anything decisive. There was one paper published last month that looked at population genetics and it found two subtypes, which I guess the media took and ran with it. But it'd be incorrect to consider them separate strains, it's a minor difference in SNPs that may have an impact on infectiousness but not on severity. And I would take this paper's conclusion with a grain of salt, they only looked at 100 or so cases, in no way enough to conclude anything. It looks like this virus is relatively stable and mutates at a slow rate (which is great news for vaccine development).

16 minutes ago, Maleficent said:

so does the strategy of locking everyone up, in my opinion. 

So, then? What's your plan? Let people die? This disease is too infectious to be contained effectively without (at least) massive testing and in most countries we are not there yet. 

[Diamond Heart 4,400]

Just now, Maleficent said:

The economy and proper healthcare, mortality rate, birth rates, and life-threatening poverty are directly linked. 

Shutting down and staying home will also kill millions of lives around the world, and push developing countries into deep poverty which will take decades to recover from. 

The argument isn’t as simple as “stay home and lives will be saved”. 

Oh PLEASE, you are pushing a dangerous narrative man. Literally thousands of medical experts (not journalists with their own agenda) are encouraging isolation. All over the WORLD. The only resistance ive seen is from conspiracy theorists, rich republicans and people who think their 'freedom' is danger(i.e Americans  ) 

My brother, uncle and sister all work in our National Health Service and is helping fight this pandemic everyday, and whats making it worse for them (the actual people dealing with it) are the people not following isolation, infecting others and putting vulnerable people at risk. The virus is being contained simply because of isolation, if it were to stop the number of deaths would rise exceptionally. Our NHS would collapse if isolation stopped and the number of infected people skyrocketed. There is not enough beds, workers, or enough money to stop it if that happens. All states/countries that are lagging or refuse to isolate have the highest deaths and infection rates, which is proof in itself. 

[Eighteen 5,430]

if COVID really is less dangerous than previously thought, then that's good news that should be celebrated. but at the same time, as we see from NY and italy, it is still dangerous no matter which way you slice it, and people are forgetting that if lockdowns weren't put in place, it would have been new york (or worse) on a very widespread level. 

[blankpaper 21]

14 minutes ago, Maleficent said:

The economy and proper healthcare, mortality rate, birth rates, and life-threatening poverty are directly linked. 

Shutting down and staying home will also kill millions of lives around the world, and push developing countries into deep poverty which will take decades to recover from. 

The argument isn’t as simple as “stay home and lives will be saved”. 

I can’t with people who just think the economy is some detached vague idea of stocks and rich people haha

Ways a severe economic collapse will kill people—homelessness, untreated medical conditions, increased crime, overdoses, domestic violence, suicides, etc. And that’s not including things like starvation which will wipe out huge populations in poor/developing countries

The poor and middle class are the ones who will bear the brunt of it. It isn’t about protecting the rich

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

1 hour ago, Maleficent said:

Scott W. Atlas, MD, is the David and Joan Traitel Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.

@Florin put his credentials in the OP, i think theyre important!

Just as a side note, this guy is quite a piece of work... He has contributed columns to WSJ before, too, and his opinions (mostly political) are very obviously right-leaning, so I'm not surprised he would write a piece like this.

As a scientist I would normally say we should always listen to scientists... but let's make that scientists in the plural. Most health scientists (in particular epidemiologists, virologists, and infectiologists, who are the ones that really know what they're talking about--the rest of us get our lead from them in this matter) are in agreement about the usefulness of lockdowns. The opinion of one doctor is not enough unless you have other opinions to compare it with.

Let's not forget Luc Montagnier, who won a whole Nobel Prize for Medicine for his discovery of HIV and is also a whole a*s antivaxxer who believes DNA can emit radio waves. 

[Rolodex of Hate 1,761]

Oh just f*ck off Americans are really p*ssing me off, Europe and the rest of the WORLD are dealing with thousands of deaths, yes younger people are less likely to die from it but they're still at risk of being hospitalised! It's sick that these people think they also don't need to isolate like everyone else when the US has the most cases anywhere in the world! The Americans that want to break isolate need to grow up or just go outside and get seriously ill if that's what they really want tbh

[gypsy101 5,453]

girl over 20,000 people died in the last WEEK.

[Maleficent 6]

22 minutes ago, Diamond Heart said:

Oh PLEASE, you are pushing a dangerous narrative man. Literally thousands of medical experts (not journalists with their own agenda) are encouraging isolation. All over the WORLD. The only resistance ive seen is from conspiracy theorists, rich republicans and people who think their 'freedom' is danger(i.e Americans  ) 

My brother, uncle and sister all work in our National Health Service and is helping fight this pandemic everyday, and whats making it worse for them (the actual people dealing with it) are the people not following isolation, infecting others and putting vulnerable people at risk. The virus is being contained simply because of isolation, if it were to stop the number of deaths would rise exceptionally. Our NHS would collapse if isolation stopped and the number of infected people skyrocketed. There is not enough beds, workers, or enough money to stop it if that happens. All states/countries that are lagging or refuse to isolate have the highest deaths and infection rates, which is proof in itself. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-n-warns-hunger-pandemic-amid-threats-coronavirus-economic-downturn-n1189326

i am not pedalling any narrative other than clear cut facts. 

An additional 130 million people could be on the brink of starvation by the end of 2020 as a result of the outbreak’s economic ramifications.

[Bt1 5,213]

44 minutes ago, Eighteen said:

if COVID really is less dangerous than previously thought, then that's good news that should be celebrated. but at the same time, as we see from NY and italy, it is still dangerous no matter which way you slice it, and people are forgetting that if lockdowns weren't put in place, it would have been new york (or worse) on a very widespread level. 

That's an assumption. There are places with no or soft lockdowns that have seen similar or better effects.

 

[FlopSlurper 34,336]

do you want us dead this bad? because the way you keep posting these threads sure makes it feel like it

[Bt1 5,213]

37 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

Just as a side note, this guy is quite a piece of work... He has contributed columns to WSJ before, too, and his opinions (mostly political) are very obviously right-leaning, so I'm not surprised he would write a piece like this.

As a scientist I would normally say we should always listen to scientists... but let's make that scientists in the plural. Most health scientists (in particular epidemiologists, virologists, and infectiologists, who are the ones that really know what they're talking about--the rest of us get our lead from them in this matter) are in agreement about the usefulness of lockdowns. The opinion of one doctor is not enough unless you have other opinions to compare it with.

Let's not forget Luc Montagnier, who won a whole Nobel Prize for Medicine for his discovery of HIV and is also a whole a*s antivaxxer who believes DNA can emit radio waves. 

There are a lot of scientists who have similar opinions. However, they dont get air time. 

Even Fauci compared it with the flu in some situations. 

There is no evidence that lockdowns work better than other measures. Of course, you will see some effects on the rate of transmission, but that's like a butcher solution on this situation. 

[Bt1 5,213]

3 minutes ago, FlopSlurper said:

do you want us dead this bad? because the way you keep posting these threads sure makes it feel like it

Your comment is disgusting. Read the article. You can agree or not agree with the points. 

No need for these kind of attacks. 

[Bt1 5,213]

50 minutes ago, blankpaper said:

I can’t with people who just think the economy is some detached vague idea of stocks and rich people haha

Ways a severe economic collapse will kill people—homelessness, untreated medical conditions, increased crime, overdoses, domestic violence, suicides, etc. And that’s not including things like starvation which will wipe out huge populations in poor/developing countries

The poor and middle class are the ones who will bear the brunt of it. It isn’t about protecting the rich

The scary thing is that the effects are starting to be seen and people are ignoring them. 

[FlopSlurper 34,336]

3 minutes ago, Florin said:

Your comment is disgusting. Read the article. You can agree or not agree with the points. 

No need for these kind of attacks. 

the way people be throwing disgusting around over anything they disagree with 😭 I could say the same about these threads when there are thousands of people dying but there I was posting a joke and you got triggered by it and for what 😭

[Eighteen 5,430]

31 minutes ago, Florin said:

That's an assumption. There are places with no or soft lockdowns that have seen similar or better effects.

 

well speaking from someone from a small state with comparatively little COVID infections even at the peak, i've seen steadily ballooning numbers dwindle down to almost nothing where i live because of the lockdown. but that being said, there are still small clusters of outbreaks in my community even with the lockdown in place (one at a fast food restaurant chain where about 12 people were infected; another instance at a medical facility where 1 person went to work sick, getting about 15 others sick). now if there weren't a lockdown in place and people were behaving normally, those two clusters, i think it's safe to assume, could have really exploded into something much worse. 

of course, if the US had enough testing and a strong response apparatus, it could theoretically employ the south korean method, where they did not have to close down society bc they tested a lot of people per capita and immediately isolated those who were positive; but as far as i know, the US doesn't have the level of testing to be able to do that yet. 

now i know people are saying that maybe covid's mortality rate is about that of the flu, and maybe that's true, idk yet, but i can say that i have never heard of the flu filling up hospitals as badly as covid is. one thing to take into consideration i think is how contagious COVID is. so what i'm thinking is that while COVID may have the same mortality rate as the flu, because of how contagious it is, much more people will need hospital because much more people will become sick with it. and so far, US hospitals have been more or less able to keep up with the sick, keeping the mortality rate down by giving medical attention to everyone who needs it. but you can imagine how it would have been should the infection spread wider than it did, clogging up hospitals and therefore allowing much more people to die because there weren't enough beds.