|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 14, 2020 1:39:57 GMT
Wait and see. This annihilation-level pandemic is going away within a few weeks. WHO position that lockdowns are harmful. Information that mask use outside the clinical setting makes no difference (which had already been proven out from every other mask study over the last 100 years). Large peak (which came and went already) followed by slow decline followed by precipitous decline - just like every other pandemic ever. Do you even understand that WHO took the ultraliberal stance for deciding lockdowns were harmful? You are agreeing with them that it's hard on minorities and it will take them and the poor a long time to recover financially, and that's the reason to avoid a lockdown, not that lockdowns don't help with the pandemic. You've turned into a liberal in order to be right!  Nope. I was convinced by mid-May that lockdowns were a terrible idea. The only thing it accomplished besides wrecked economies is extending the pandemic - the same number of people will get infected, it just draws it out longer so a sharp, short peak becomes a lower but wider peak. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 14, 2020 1:50:59 GMT
Do you even understand that WHO took the ultraliberal stance for deciding lockdowns were harmful? You are agreeing with them that it's hard on minorities and it will take them and the poor a long time to recover financially, and that's the reason to avoid a lockdown, not that lockdowns don't help with the pandemic. You've turned into a liberal in order to be right! Nope. I was convinced by mid-May that lockdowns were a terrible idea. The only thing it accomplished besides wrecked economies is extending the pandemic - the same number of people will get infected, it just draws it out longer so a sharp, short peak becomes a lower but wider peak. You said, "And, yet again, the experts agree with me." They are saying very liberal things that have nothing to do with how effective lockdowns are against the virus. Either they agree with you, making you a liberal, or the experts don't actually agree with you. :::waits patiently for WHO to be a bunch of crackpots again:::: |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 14, 2020 2:09:15 GMT
Nope. I was convinced by mid-May that lockdowns were a terrible idea. The only thing it accomplished besides wrecked economies is extending the pandemic - the same number of people will get infected, it just draws it out longer so a sharp, short peak becomes a lower but wider peak. You said, "And, yet again, the experts agree with me." They are saying very liberal things that have nothing to do with how effective lockdowns are against the virus. Either they agree with you, making you a liberal, or the experts don't actually agree with you. :::waits patiently for WHO to be a bunch of crackpots again:::: When I decide that masks are worthless outside the clinical setting and that lockdowns are more harm then good, it's based upon reviewing all of the available data with a solid background in science and mathematics and with no ulterior motive. The WHO made their announcement only recently - due to political expediency. They ignored the data prior to this for political expediency. They can say the exact same things as me and do so for vastly different purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 14, 2020 2:27:58 GMT
You said, "And, yet again, the experts agree with me." They are saying very liberal things that have nothing to do with how effective lockdowns are against the virus. Either they agree with you, making you a liberal, or the experts don't actually agree with you. :::waits patiently for WHO to be a bunch of crackpots again:::: When I decide that masks are worthless outside the clinical setting and that lockdowns are more harm then good, it's based upon reviewing all of the available data with a solid background in science and mathematics and with no ulterior motive. The WHO made their announcement only recently - due to political expediency. They ignored the data prior to this for political expediency. They can say the exact same things as me and do so for vastly different purposes. They are not saying the same thing as you. All they said was that lockdowns should not be the PRIMARY method of Covid control. They can still, according to WHO, be secondary or tertiary methods..............................such as when morons don't wear masks and make it necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by mustrumridcully on Oct 14, 2020 8:57:16 GMT
Wait and see. This annihilation-level pandemic is going away within a few weeks. WHO position that lockdowns are harmful. Information that mask use outside the clinical setting makes no difference (which had already been proven out from every other mask study over the last 100 years). Large peak (which came and went already) followed by slow decline followed by precipitous decline - just like every other pandemic ever. Do you even understand that WHO took the ultraliberal stance for deciding lockdowns were harmful? You are agreeing with them that it's hard on minorities and it will take them and the poor a long time to recover financially, and that's the reason to avoid a lockdown, not that lockdowns don't help with the pandemic. You've turned into a liberal in order to be right! No one ever expected him to stoop so low. |
|
|
|
Post by mustrumridcully on Oct 14, 2020 9:06:42 GMT
Do you even understand that WHO took the ultraliberal stance for deciding lockdowns were harmful? You are agreeing with them that it's hard on minorities and it will take them and the poor a long time to recover financially, and that's the reason to avoid a lockdown, not that lockdowns don't help with the pandemic. You've turned into a liberal in order to be right! Nope. I was convinced by mid-May that lockdowns were a terrible idea. The only thing it accomplished besides wrecked economies is extending the pandemic - the same number of people will get infected, it just draws it out longer so a sharp, short peak becomes a lower but wider peak.
So you heard the term "flattening the curve", but failed to understand why we want to do that?
Yes, as long as we don't have vaccines, people will get infected, and it might very well be the same number as we would without restrictions.
But that they are getting infected more slowly is the purpose of the entire exercise. So that we don't have ERs and ICU units overcrowded wih sick people. Because then more people will die because we can't care for them. Some people will die because we don't have the time to apply the lessons we learned from the first patients yet.
And the economical consequences of this would be also very harsh, because sick people don't work, people worrying about their sick family members work poorly or have to take time off to take care of them, people stop going out because it seems far too risky to do so. The economy ends up even more in shambles.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 14, 2020 10:44:26 GMT
Nope. I was convinced by mid-May that lockdowns were a terrible idea. The only thing it accomplished besides wrecked economies is extending the pandemic - the same number of people will get infected, it just draws it out longer so a sharp, short peak becomes a lower but wider peak.
So you heard the term "flattening the curve", but failed to understand why we want to do that?
Yes, as long as we don't have vaccines, people will get infected, and it might very well be the same number as we would without restrictions.
But that they are getting infected more slowly is the purpose of the entire exercise. So that we don't have ERs and ICU units overcrowded wih sick people. Because then more people will die because we can't care for them. Some people will die because we don't have the time to apply the lessons we learned from the first patients yet.
And the economical consequences of this would be also very harsh, because sick people don't work, people worrying about their sick family members work poorly or have to take time off to take care of them, people stop going out because it seems far too risky to do so. The economy ends up even more in shambles.
Except for that fact that the peak already came and went - hospitals are not being overwhelmed because the majority of those who are getting sick are younger and healthier than in March-April. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 14, 2020 12:42:00 GMT
So you heard the term "flattening the curve", but failed to understand why we want to do that?
Yes, as long as we don't have vaccines, people will get infected, and it might very well be the same number as we would without restrictions.
But that they are getting infected more slowly is the purpose of the entire exercise. So that we don't have ERs and ICU units overcrowded wih sick people. Because then more people will die because we can't care for them. Some people will die because we don't have the time to apply the lessons we learned from the first patients yet.
And the economical consequences of this would be also very harsh, because sick people don't work, people worrying about their sick family members work poorly or have to take time off to take care of them, people stop going out because it seems far too risky to do so. The economy ends up even more in shambles.
Except for that fact that the peak already came and went - hospitals are not being overwhelmed because the majority of those who are getting sick are younger and healthier than in March-April. It came and went because.............::drum roll::..............MASKS! Remove the masks and there will be a faster, larger peak. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 14, 2020 12:50:07 GMT
And there were severe spikes when lockdowns were completely lifted. The counties/cities/states that did that had to return to lockdowns and other safety measures.
So.
Wear a damned mask.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 14, 2020 12:53:47 GMT
I'll just leave this here...  |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 14, 2020 13:48:09 GMT
I'll just leave this here... Cool! And since we KNOW that Covid deaths were significantly higher than all other flus combined, that must mean that lockdowns and masks prevent even more deaths and should be continued.  |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Oct 14, 2020 14:41:43 GMT
He doesn't understand math and statistics. Even my basic grasp is better than his. Sad that....
So, let's repeat.
Covid-19 is a deadly, fast spreading disease with no real effective treatment available and no vaccine.
Our only protection is lockdowns, social distancing, basic sanitation and masks.
And 3cat wants to do away with all of that, so his bosses portfolios can expand once more and their wallets drip with money at the expense of the lives of millions of innocent people.
Gotcha.
He's fucking evil.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 14, 2020 15:57:47 GMT
I'll just leave this here... Cool! And since we KNOW that Covid deaths were significantly higher than all other flus combined, that must mean that lockdowns and masks prevent even more deaths and should be continued. Do you remember seeing a credible study that tells us whether masks work for pandemics? Me neither. The difference is you think you did. What that CDC stat shows is that annual deaths are effectively unchanged due to COVID. What will be fun is watching the "experts" scramble trying to explain away deaths caused by lockdowns (suicides, death due to stroke or heart attack complications that were preventable, delayed cancer treatments resulting in preventsble death, etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Oct 14, 2020 16:38:16 GMT
He doesn't understand math and statistics. Even my basic grasp is better than his. Sad that....
So, let's repeat.
Covid-19 is a deadly, fast spreading disease with no real effective treatment available and no vaccine.
Our only protection is lockdowns, social distancing, basic sanitation and masks.
And 3cat wants to do away with all of that, so his bosses portfolios can expand once more and their wallets drip with money at the expense of the lives of millions of innocent people.
Gotcha.
He's fucking evil.
I would start talking about bell curves and bayesian inference, but that would be a waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Oct 14, 2020 16:56:05 GMT
Cool! And since we KNOW that Covid deaths were significantly higher than all other flus combined, that must mean that lockdowns and masks prevent even more deaths and should be continued. Do you remember seeing a credible study that tells us whether masks work for pandemics? Me neither. The difference is you think you did. What that CDC stat shows is that annual deaths are effectively unchanged due to COVID. What will be fun is watching the "experts" scramble trying to explain away deaths caused by lockdowns (suicides, death due to stroke or heart attack complications that were preventable, delayed cancer treatments resulting in preventsble death, etc.) No scrambling is necessary. Only an idiot can fail to see that if you have a new illness that adds 200k deaths(far more than flus), but the total is unchanged, something you did in response worked to keep other deaths down. |
|
