South Korean researchers: No evidence of COVID19 reinfections

[Bt1 5,213]

2 minutes ago, BenG said:

It was necessary because it was a sure-fire bandaid solution.

Lockdowns are not necessary in the long term. I'm not refuting that. However, we don't know how much restrictions are sufficient to stop an exponential growth. So we slam R0 all the way down and work backwards.

How down should the R0 be? It is under 1 almost everywhere now. 

[BenG 19,908]

2 minutes ago, Florin said:

This is actually SF if we believe the current antibodies tests made in places like NYC, because there arent enough people left in the city. 

At worst, if we believe that 100% of people can get sick at the same time, and the virus would have not slow down at all because of herd immunity, the numbers in NYC could have been 4x times higher, not 10x times, as you say. 

I have no idea what you're saying. Can you please clarify and rephrase?

[BenG 19,908]

Just now, Florin said:

How down should the R0 be? It is under 1 almost everywhere now. 

According to experts, 0.5 to 0.7 is a good target.

[Bt1 5,213]

17 minutes ago, Whispering said:

I gave you what you asked for.

Social distancing has always been a part of lockdowns (in most countries). People are still getting out to get groceries and necessities, going to the park, etc. The two concepts can, and do, excise together.

That's not what I've asked for. 

I said multiple times that I understand social distancing measures, but not lockdowns. 

[Bt1 5,213]

Just now, BenG said:

According to experts, 0.5 to 0.7 is a good target.

Under 1 is not enough anymore? I thought that was the standard. 

What do you think of the places who had that R0 and still lockdowns?

[Whispering 18,865]

2 minutes ago, Florin said:

That's not what I've asked for. 

I said multiple times that I understand social distancing measures, but not lockdowns. 

You didn’t read all the articles. You picked one thing out of one article.

Thoroughly read all five of the articles. Study the graphs and information provided. 

[Bt1 5,213]

2 minutes ago, BenG said:

I have no idea what you're saying. Can you please clarify and rephrase?

Antibodies tests in NYC show that 25% had it. So at worst, it could have been 4x times worst without a lockdown, not 10x times worst as you've said. 

And thats assuming that 100% of new Yorkers would have got the virus at the same time and herd immunity would have not existed at all. 

[BenG 19,908]

Just now, Florin said:

Under 1 is not enough anymore? I thought that was the standard. 

What do you think of the places who had that R0 and still lockdowns?

Under 1 in principle but there's uncertainty and some kind of margin is required.

No places, as far as I know had a sub-1 R0 before restrictions. Places that have hit sufficiently low R0 with restrictions should have them slowly lifted soon. Governments may try to hold on longer to make sure R0 is consistently low before making changes. Besides that, lockdowns drive down the number of new cases much faster, allowing a better "refresh" of the state of the crisis.

[BenG 19,908]

6 minutes ago, Florin said:

Antibodies tests in NYC show that 25% had it. So at worst, it could have been 4x times worst without a lockdown, not 10x times worst as you've said. 

And thats assuming that 100% of new Yorkers would have got the virus at the same time and herd immunity would have not existed at all. 

NYC is an extreme case. In most other places, the number of cases could have easily been 10x more. For clarification, 10x was an arbitrary number. It was meant to illustrate how severe it could potentially get.

[Bt1 5,213]

1 minute ago, BenG said:

NYC is an extreme case. In most other places, the number of cases could have easily been 10x more.

How many more extreme cases we have in the world? London, Paris, Frankfurt, New Jersey?

In how many more places extreme measures like in New York shouldn't have been considered, because maybe the conditions are so different? 

 

[BenG 19,908]

Just now, Florin said:

How many more extreme cases we have in the world? London, Paris, Frankfurt, New Jersey?

In how many more places extreme measures like in New York shouldn't have been considered, because maybe the conditions are so different? 

 

It is much easier to make decisions with hindsight, doesn't necessarily make the past decisions wrong.

In many places, testing is still a problem, so we have very limited knowledge on the extent of the spread.

[Bt1 5,213]

Anyway. @BenG @Whispering it was nice to try to have a different kind of discussion, but it's clear we cant find the common ground yet. 

Hopefully the next discussions will start from a better place, even if we probably won't agree on this subject too soon. 

[ADVENTURE 856]

5 hours ago, WholesomeOOf said:

 @blankpaper @ADVENTURE

While I can understand the viewpoint you all share, that Starbucks comment from @Florin was unequivocally ignorant regardless of whether or not it was meant to be humorous and clearly showcases a lack of perspective regarding the legitimate seriousness of the current situation. Also, you're not exaclty presenting a healthy environment for discussion by following up your post with comments such as "Just wait. Lockdown supporters will find a new reason why people need to stay home." My point is, don't act as though you're better than anyone else here when you are quite literally instigating these heated discussions by leaving nonsensical and immature comments meant to degrade/mock others with an opposing opinion. I may not agree with all of your particular opinions on certain things, but I don't see how that would give me the incentive to begin spouting condescending comments about you or others that share the same sentiments.

Basically, gain some maturity and present your ideals in a respectful manner.

But I could literally quote multiple times in this thread that people have come off as immature and harsh with their opinions? It seems it acceptable on here to be “above others” as long as you are fighting for long term lockdowns. Doesn’t make sense to me. 

We are all just people trying to do the best that we can. That Starbucks comment was a throw away joke essentially. Nothing to take literal. And they got attacked for it. That I do not agree with. 

[ADVENTURE 856]

5 hours ago, WholesomeOOf said:

My point is, don't act as though you're better than anyone else here when you are quite literally instigating these heated discussions by leaving nonsensical and immature comments meant to degrade/mock others with an opposing opinion.

 

On 5/1/2020 at 12:34 PM, ZacharyMark said:

Listen up.

We aren't going to tolerate bratty opinions on here acting like this virus hasn't already killed 65k+ people and counting in the US. We aren't going to take seriously your petty demands for Starbucks when that's literally the last thing we should be focusing on.

@WholesomeOOf this is one of the most liked comments on this thread. Look at how @ZacharyMark is acting like he needs to “inform” us of what is going on and how we are too stupid to understand the levity of it all. How is his comment not mocking and instigating? How is he not degrading others with his comment? 

if you have an answer for why his comment is appropriate and not the others defending what @Florin was bringing up then I’d like to hear it.

from where I come from, that is the definition of talking down to people. And I can promise you, @ZacharyMark knows absolutely nothing more than anyone else on this thread.

[geusst1235 5,398]

1 hour ago, ADVENTURE said:

 

@WholesomeOOf this is one of the most liked comments on this thread. Look at how @ZacharyMark is acting like he needs to “inform” us of what is going on and how we are too stupid to understand the levity of it all. How is his comment not mocking and instigating? How is he not degrading others with his comment? 

if you have an answer for why his comment is appropriate and not the others defending what @Florin was bringing up then I’d like to hear it.

from where I come from, that is the definition of talking down to people. And I can promise you, @ZacharyMark knows absolutely nothing more than anyone else on this thread.

First of all, that particular comment was posted after this one was also shared.

On 5/1/2020 at 2:06 PM, Florin said:

Just wait. Lockdown supporters will find a new reason why people need to stay home. 

Between that and the Starbucks joke, I can absolutely understand why someone might have a couple grievances with the way this post was being presented. I don't think that ANYONE should be rude to each other at all, but @Florinquite literally tried to dismiss/undervalue the opinions of others before anyone even had the chance to respectfully disagree with them. Therefore, acting as if there wasn't indeed a catalyst for the various disgruntled reactions from other people isn't exactly a sound retort.