Coronavirus (political)

That shows a lack of understanding of math & statistics though. This plan will result in a spike such that more people will need ventilators at the same time than we actually have ventilators. Meaning those people that can't get access to a ventilator will die, when they otherwise might have been saved.

So you're not just talking about a threat to the 1%. You're talking about adding another 0.2% on top of the 1% it will already kill under normal course.

In other words, you're advocating for causing more death. Now, you don't know you're doing that, because you don't understand the math. So it's not like I'm accusing you of callousness, just ignorance of the statistics.

So then to make sure i am understanding you, the only thing we can do is hide in our homes for two more years or so until they get a successful vaccine. I am not being a smartass, i am asking you.

That shows a lack of understanding of math & statistics though. This plan will result in a spike such that more people will need ventilators at the same time than we actually have ventilators. Meaning those people that can't get access to a ventilator will die, when they otherwise might have been saved.

So you're not just talking about a threat to the 1%. You're talking about adding another 0.2% on top of the 1% it will already kill under normal course.

In other words, you're advocating for causing more death. Now, you don't know you're doing that, because you don't understand the math. So it's not like I'm accusing you of callousness, just ignorance of the statistics.

The tone of your comments (as usual) have contempt in them. I'm not going down this road with you. I just wanted to say my .02. That's all. I'm outta this thread.

This may sound ignorant but what are we supposed to do? Wait a year or two for a vaccine to come out and bankrupt the country and ourselves because less than 1% of the people (most w/ serious underlying conditions) are at risk? I'm sorry but that doesn't sit well w/ me.

It's time to get back to a normal life, open up the economy imo. The people who have underlying conditions stay the hell home, work from home, wait it out and keep your distance.

I agree with you 100% and I am in an extremely high risk group as I have congestive heart failure, diabetes and 59 years old. I have changed a few things I do, but I am not going to wear a hazmat suit in public. I do live in a sparsely populated area. I almost have to laugh at all the people around me wearing masks and gloves, most don't know how to properly use them. They might as well not be wearing them at all. In fact they probably are putting themselves more at risk as it gives them a false sense of security.

Quote:
On Monday, Newsom along with Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced a regional partnership to coordinate the reopening of the West Coast. In the northeast, seven other states, including New York and New Jersey, the two hardest-hit states by the coronavirus, announced a similar plan to coordinate reopening.

With the exception of Massachusetts, all ten states actively developing plans to reopen are led by Democratic governors.

Did anyone see Newsome's 6 point plan? That stuff isn't happening any time soon. It makes mention of physical distancing in schools, like that is possible without building a lot more new schools. His plan is a big of joke as his earlier claim that 25 million Californians will get sick. The dude just doesn't live in the real world.

Quote:
On Monday, Newsom along with Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced a regional partnership to coordinate the reopening of the West Coast. In the northeast, seven other states, including New York and New Jersey, the two hardest-hit states by the coronavirus, announced a similar plan to coordinate reopening.

With the exception of Massachusetts, all ten states actively developing plans to reopen are led by Democratic governors.

Did anyone see Newsome's 6 point plan? That stuff isn't happening any time soon. It makes mention of physical distancing in schools, like that is possible without building a lot more new schools. His plan is a big of joke as his earlier claim that 25 million Californians will get sick. The dude just doesn't live in the real world.

That was a worst case scenario but with how quickly things change and how little we still know with limited testing predictions were bound to be inaccurate

I agree with you 100% and I am in an extremely high risk group as I have congestive heart failure, diabetes and 59 years old. I have changed a few things I do, but I am not going to wear a hazmat suit in public. I do live in a sparsely populated area. I almost have to laugh at all the people around me wearing masks and gloves, most don't know how to properly use them. They might as well not be wearing them at all. In fact they probably are putting themselves more at risk as it gives them a false sense of security.

This

Economic impact can’t be denied. Here’s my trickle down effect. I’m a car accident attorney.

Paralegals hours cut to 2-3 days a week.
No new cases coming in and not sure we would take one unless it’s a former client/favor
Chiros, orthos, diagnostic centers are have very little business from the personal injury sector. Clients didn’t want to go in 2 months ago when so liv was unknown.
Courts closed.
Insurance companies = less new claims (Educated guess)
Yearly bonus? Highly doubt it, I’m thinking of telling them to cut my salaries pay check in half to help them

I don’t pretend to know what you do. I imagine you do a select well thought out reopening of certain businesses. But vital and hard hit businesses like restaurants can’t open.

Less deaths balanced against saving the economy. Good logical arguments for both sides. I think a tiered easing in is the way to go.

If the tepid slow down in new cases continues, then I think you start easing in in a month or two. Of course ... the tepid slow down is because the lock down is working so it’s a double edge sword.

Can’t deny the irony.

So then to make sure i am understanding you, the only thing we can do is hide in our homes for two more years or so until they get a successful vaccine. I am not being a smartass, i am asking you.

Not hide in our homes non stop for two years, but you watch the numbers closely. We should stay in our homes until the growth in new cases is down to a point where you can start to come out and play a little bit. Modelers can do the math to say if we have X number of new cases per day that equates to Y admissions to hospitals 7 days later, etc etc. As long as those expected admissions to hospitals are below the capacity of those hospitals, then you're good to come out and play.

That will spread the disease around a little more. But we should view that as an inevitability. When the disease starts to spike again and the new case growth gets too high, then we go back to social distancing.

And we might have to do that on/off/on/off approach for the next 18 months until we have a vaccine.

This helps you balance the economy a bit with the spread of the illness. This illness is going to kill a certain amount of people, you just want to give those people a chance to beat it with access to a ventilator and a hospital bed. If you can't give them a hospital bed and a ventilator then you've failed to fight the virus and it's resulted in more death than it needed to.

If we get a vaccine sooner, then all the better, but I'd expect to go on and off with stay at home orders for 18 months or so.

US to buy 15 billion in dairy and food from farmers. (Most likely helping the Perdue companies of the world and not the family run farms). I’m fine with it, they need help and food is good. Better than just bailing them out.

Just wish we didn’t pump 28 billion over the last 2 years to farmers in, from what I read, was free money for the difference in what they sold their China tariffed food product for vs what it would have no trade war. I think we had to financially respond to China at some point so I’m fine with that to.

Idk ... just wish we didn’t run up the deficit so much during a good economy ... because now, hindsight’s a bitch.

http://https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/coronavirus-sonny-perdue-dairy-farmers-dump-milk

Not hide in our homes non stop for two years, but you watch the numbers closely. We should stay in our homes until the growth in new cases is down to a point where you can start to come out and play a little bit. Modelers can do the math to say if we have X number of new cases per day that equates to Y admissions to hospitals 7 days later, etc etc. As long as those expected admissions to hospitals are below the capacity of those hospitals, then you're good to come out and play.

That will spread the disease around a little more. But we should view that as an inevitability. When the disease starts to spike again and the new case growth gets too high, then we go back to social distancing.

And we might have to do that on/off/on/off approach for the next 18 months until we have a vaccine.

This helps you balance the economy a bit with the spread of the illness. This illness is going to kill a certain amount of people, you just want to give those people a chance to beat it with access to a ventilator and a hospital bed. If you can't give them a hospital bed and a ventilator then you've failed to fight the virus and it's resulted in more death than it needed to.

If we get a vaccine sooner, then all the better, but I'd expect to go on and off with stay at home orders for 18 months or so.

Here is the way I see it we have 619,000 confrimed cases and 27,000 confirmed deaths that is over a 4% fatality rate. If we factor in the CDC evaluation that 25% of cases are asymptomatic at the most we are lookuing at 774,000 cases. Even with that value the death rate is 3.5%. This is all with the measures in place. This isn't even including an exteremly high hospitilization rate https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6915e3.htm (For March ). If we remove stay at home orders what does that infection rate jump to? Are we really willing to risk a 3.5% death rate with a much larger infected population? If people are worried about the economy they really need to think about what those values would do to the economy.