"Leave the Mask, Take the Cannoli"

[Rigby5]

So there is no excuse for "flattening the curve" still. It can not at all possibly work.

Flattening, the curve worked in the NYC Tristate Area. I saw it. The bodies were piling up as it was. No lockdown there would ended as an atrocity.

Had Trump not been President acting in defiance of lockdown and in Cahoots with Red State Governors to open up too soon for political reasons then the New York model wouid have worked.

Nope, you did not see anything work.
Working means the epidemic is over.
No more deaths.
As long as there are more deaths, then it is a totally and complete failure, likely much worse than if we had allowed a herd immunity spike in March.
Lowering the current death rate by stretching it out over a greater time period is not at all success.
That is total failure because with epidemics, time is of the essence.
The longer the epidemic duration, the much higher the death total eventually.
That is because the spread is based on time.
Flattening the curve means the infection will spread much further than it would have otherwise.

The NY model has never worked and can never work.

 

[eddiew37]

Stick it PC

Department of Homeland Security acting Secretary Chad Wolf defies Trumps order to terminate election cybersecurity official Christopher Krebs >>Department of Homeland Security acting Secretary Chad Wolf is defying President Trump’s order to terminate election cybersecurity official Christopher Krebs, multiple sources tell The Post. The White House on Wednesday evening instructed Wolf to fire Krebs after he openly dismissed claims of voter fraud in the Nov. 3 election.<<< DHS boss Chad Wolf defies Trump order to fire cyber chief Chris Krebs

 

[Care4all]

4. Here, the New England Journal of Medicine:

"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic. "
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

Looks like you missed the note preceding the article you linked to that was written April 1?

FYI


Editor’s Note: This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org. In a letter to the editor on June 3, 2020, the authors of this article state “We strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods

 

[Rigby5]

We are in WORSE shape now...than we were in March 2019.

The virus has spread throughout the nation and large portions of the country are in the same position that Italy and NY were in March. And we are already suffering from "covid fatigue" where we aren't willing to do what is necessary to fight this thing.

Thanks Donnie Douchebag

Ok, but what do you think it will take to "fight this thing"?
If you think social distancing, masks, and closing restaurants is at all going to end it, you are wrong.
And since those things won't end it, and instead make it last longer, then it just kills even MORE people.
There are only 2 ways to end any epidemic I know of.
The fastest and best way is total quarantine, with contract tracing, etc.
That works the fastest, and has the least deaths.
The other is herd immunity, where some % has or get immunity and prevents the virus from finding new hosts.
That could kill some 10,000 people or so, but saves lives by ending it.

 

[Rigby5]

4. Here, the New England Journal of Medicine:

"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic. "
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

Looks like you missed the note preceding the article you linked to that was written April 1?

FYI


Editor’s Note: This article was published on April 1, 2020, at NEJM.org. In a letter to the editor on June 3, 2020, the authors of this article state “We strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods

Nothing wrong with masks, but since that can't end any epidemic, if one only relies on that, then you end up killing more people in the long run, as compared to just letting it quickly spike and be over sooner.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

...Why is covid spiking again in mask wearing states?

Because there were enough idiots who let-up their guard after a few months to trigger outbreaks even in those states?

Wrong answer.

 

[Lesh]

If you think social distancing, masks, and closing restaurants is at all going to end it, you are wrong.

Bullshit. It works where it's been strictly done...like South Korea, Vietnam. New Zealand, and other placers

 

[Lesh]

...Why is covid spiking again in mask wearing states?

Because there were enough idiots who let-up their guard after a few months to trigger outbreaks even in those states?

Right answer

 

[LordBrownTrout]

...Why is covid spiking again in mask wearing states?

Because there were enough idiots who let-up their guard after a few months to trigger outbreaks even in those states?

Right answer

Wrong answer.

 

[Lesh]

Nope, you did not see anything work.
Working means the epidemic is over.

Sorry asshole, You don't get to define what works.

If the virus is under control...if infections are low and deaths are low...the mitigation efforts are working.
If infections are on the order of 150,000 per day...and deaths are over one ******* thousand...it is not working


Wear a mask...at all times in public. Do not do indoor dining or drinking. . Do not got to gyms or hair salons

 

[Care4all]

We are in WORSE shape now...than we were in March 2019.

The virus has spread throughout the nation and large portions of the country are in the same position that Italy and NY were in March. And we are already suffering from "covid fatigue" where we aren't willing to do what is necessary to fight this thing.

Thanks Donnie Douchebag

Ok, but what do you think it will take to "fight this thing"?
If you think social distancing, masks, and closing restaurants is at all going to end it, you are wrong.
And since those things won't end it, and instead make it last longer, then it just kills even MORE people.
There are only 2 ways to end any epidemic I know of.
The fastest and best way is total quarantine, with contract tracing, etc.
That works the fastest, and has the least deaths.
The other is herd immunity, where some % has or get immunity and prevents the virus from finding new hosts.
That could kill some 10,000 people or so, but saves lives by ending it.

Unless done through the safer vaccination way of herd immunity,

Herd immunity through natural spread means, the virus will kill 2-3 million Americans, before we reach the 70% herd immunity in the population needed to semi squash this virus.... it will still be here, but fewer will catch it, so fewer will die from it after you kill off the 2 million plus.... and THAT is not a SANE option.

 

[Rigby5]

If you think social distancing, masks, and closing restaurants is at all going to end it, you are wrong.

Bullshit. It works where it's been strictly done...like South Korea, Vietnam. New Zealand, and other placers

Wrong.
No place has ever ended any epidemic with social distancing, ever.
South Korea, Vietnam, NZ, China, are all relying on full quarantine, with contact tracing.
They are also doing social distancing, but they in no way are relying on it at all.
No rational person would ever rely on social distancing, because it can't work by itself.

If you are unclear as to the differences between social distancing and quarantine, think speed.
Quarantine saves lives because it shortens the epidemic to less than 2 months.
Social distancing can keep an epidemic going forever.
Social distancing does not try to end an epidemic at all, but instead just tries to stretch out the epidemic for a longer duration. AKA, "flattening the curve".

 

[Rigby5]

Nope, you did not see anything work.
Working means the epidemic is over.

Sorry asshole, You don't get to define what works.

If the virus is under control...if infections are low and deaths are low...the mitigation efforts are working.
If infections are on the order of 150,000 per day...and deaths are over one ******* thousand...it is not working


Wear a mask...at all times in public. Do not do indoor dining or drinking. . Do not got to gyms or hair salons

Wrong.
I DO get to define success.
If there are deaths and no end in sight, then its a failure compared to herd immunity which would have spiked but quickly ended.

The virus is totally out of control because there are still infections.
Infections are just like infected tourists in March.
They mean it is still just starting, and not anywhere near to over yet.

I don't mind wearing a mask or anything that ends the epidemic.
But just slowing it down does nothing at all, and is just stupid.

 

[Rigby5]

We are in WORSE shape now...than we were in March 2019.

The virus has spread throughout the nation and large portions of the country are in the same position that Italy and NY were in March. And we are already suffering from "covid fatigue" where we aren't willing to do what is necessary to fight this thing.

Thanks Donnie Douchebag

Ok, but what do you think it will take to "fight this thing"?
If you think social distancing, masks, and closing restaurants is at all going to end it, you are wrong.
And since those things won't end it, and instead make it last longer, then it just kills even MORE people.
There are only 2 ways to end any epidemic I know of.
The fastest and best way is total quarantine, with contract tracing, etc.
That works the fastest, and has the least deaths.
The other is herd immunity, where some % has or get immunity and prevents the virus from finding new hosts.
That could kill some 10,000 people or so, but saves lives by ending it.

Unless done through the safer vaccination way of herd immunity,

Herd immunity through natural spread means, the virus will kill 2-3 million Americans, before we reach the 70% herd immunity in the population needed to semi squash this virus.... it will still be here, but fewer will catch it, so fewer will die from it after you kill off the 2 million plus.... and THAT is not a SANE option.

Of course a vaccine is preferred, but we should not have waited for one.
And you are totally wrong about the death toll of herd immunity.
You are also wrong about any covid-19 virus being around after herd immunity is achieved.
The virus totally dies out in less than 12 days herd immunity is achieved.

To explain why your 3 million dead from herd immunity is wrong. First you have to see that the 1.5% lethality rate is wrong by over a factor of 10 because they were only using those testing positive when they were counting the number of those infected. It turns out now that 90% of those infected are asymptomatic, so don't get tested and are not counted.
Then you have to see that when you need 67% of the population to be immune for herd immunity to wipe out the virus, that does not mean 67% of the population has to get infected and recover. For example, children already start inherently immune. And so are those 90% asymptomatic. So instead of 230 million needing to get infected and recover, is is more like only 23 million.
Then the whole point of herd immunity is that the young and healthy getting immunity means they can protect the elderly and vulnerable. The death rate of the young and healthy is at least 40 times lower then the elderly, so then almost no one has to die in order to achieve herd immunity very quickly.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

What would have happened if we did nothing? Because there was a group that said, “Let’s just ride it out. Let’s ride it out.” Trump April 1 2020.

Rigby5, post: 25918428

So then Fauci's 4 million dead estimate from herd immunity, should really have been less than 4 thousand.

Something is seriously wrong with your calculations. Best double check

Why didn’t Trump figure out what you just did?

Dying on Airplanes

Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing

Issued on: April 1, 2020

THE PRESIDENT: It says 100- to 200,000. Anything — it’s a lot of people, right? It’s a lot of people.

Well, you didn’t ask the other question. What would have happened — because this is the question that I’ve been asking Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx for a long time, and they’ve been working on this for a long time.
The question is: What would have happened if we did nothing? Because there was a group that said, “Let’s just ride it out. Let’s ride it out.” What would have happened? And that number comes in at 1.5 to 1.6 million people, up to 2.2 and even beyond. So that’s 2.2 million people would have died if we did nothing, if we just carried on our life.

Now, I don’t think that would have been possible because you would have had people dying all over the place. This would not have been a normal life. How many people have even seen anybody die? You would have seen people dying on airplanes. You would have been seeing people dying in hotel lobbies. You would’ve seen death all over.

So I think, from a practical standpoint, that couldn’t have been carried out too far. But — but if you — if you did nothing, on the higher side, the number would be 2.2 and maybe even more, and on the lower side, 1.6 million people.

Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing | The White House

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Rigby5, post: 25918932

The other is herd immunity, where some % has or get immunity and prevents the virus from finding new hosts.
That could kill some 10,000 people or so, but saves lives by ending it.

If you are truly a Trump supporting wannabe epidemiologist with herd immunity expertise where were you last March when Trump needed you to help him save the economy and 400,000 deaths now projected by the time Joe takes the oath of office on January 20.

You say science misled Trump last March away from herd immunity.

Here is science from last March:

Here's Why Herd Immunity Won't Save Us From The COVID-19 Pandemic
GIDEON MEYEROWITZ-KATZ
30 MARCH 2020

This is what's known as the herd immunity threshold. COVID-19 is, fortunately, much less infectious than mumps, with an estimated R0 of roughly 3.

With this number, the proportion of people who need to be infected is lower but still high, sitting at around 70 percent of the entire population.

Which brings us to why herd immunity could never be considered a preventative measure.

If 70 percent of your population is infected with a disease, it is by definition not prevention. How can it be? Most of the people in your country are sick! And the hopeful nonsense that you can reach that 70 percent by just infecting young people is simply absurd. If only young people are immune, you'd have clusters of older people with no immunity at all, making it incredibly risky for anyone over a certain age to leave their house lest they get infected, forever.

It's also worth thinking about the repercussions of this disastrous scenario – the best estimates put COVID-19 infection fatality rate at around 0.5-1 percent. If 70 percent of an entire population gets sick, that means that between 0.35-0.7 percent of everyone in a country could die, which is a catastrophic outcome.

With something like 10 percent of all infections needing to be hospitalised, you'd also see an enormous number of people very sick, which has huge implications for the country as well.

The sad fact is that herd immunity just isn't a solution to our pandemic woes. Yes, it may eventually happen anyway, but hoping that it will save us all is just not realistic. The time to discuss herd immunity is when we have a vaccine developed, and not one second earlier, because at that point we will be able to really stop the epidemic in its tracks.

Until we have a vaccine, anyone talking about herd immunity as a preventative strategy for COVID-19 is simply wrong

Here's Why Herd Immunity Won't Save Us From The COVID-19 Pandemic

It's hard to predict things in a pandemic. The situation changes so much on a daily basis that everything you thought you knew last week is wrong by the end of the day. Things are changing so fast that even the solid certainties that we thought we we

www.google.com

So where is your pro-herd immunity science from last March.?

I am sorry but I cannot take a Trump voters word that early this year herd immunity was the way to go - resulting in a total number of deaths 10,000 or less.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Nope, you did not see anything work.Working means the epidemic is over.
No more deaths.

When was the New York model enacted simultaneously across the entire United States?

We have proof you are a fraud because you tell me the New York Model failed because it never achieved no more deaths.

Therefore it confirms your status as a typical Trump liar.

New York City Without Coronavirus Deaths Four Months After First Report
By Jennifer Peltz, Michael R. Sisak and Marina Villeneuve • Published July 12, 2020 •Updated on July 12, 2020 at 7:37 pm

New York City Without Coronavirus Deaths Four Months After First Report

New York City health officials reported zero deaths related to the novel coronavirus four months after the state’s first official death was recorded on March 11. According to initial data reported by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, no one died from the virus in New York City on...

www.nbcnewyork.com

PLEASE HELP saves lives. Quit lying.

 

[Rigby5]

What would have happened if we did nothing? Because there was a group that said, “Let’s just ride it out. Let’s ride it out.” Trump April 1 2020.

Rigby5, post: 25918428

So then Fauci's 4 million dead estimate from herd immunity, should really have been less than 4 thousand.

Something is seriously wrong with your calculations. Best double check

Why didn’t Trump figure out what you just did?

Dying on Airplanes

Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing

Issued on: April 1, 2020

THE PRESIDENT: It says 100- to 200,000. Anything — it’s a lot of people, right? It’s a lot of people.

Well, you didn’t ask the other question. What would have happened — because this is the question that I’ve been asking Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx for a long time, and they’ve been working on this for a long time.
The question is: What would have happened if we did nothing? Because there was a group that said, “Let’s just ride it out. Let’s ride it out.” What would have happened? And that number comes in at 1.5 to 1.6 million people, up to 2.2 and even beyond. So that’s 2.2 million people would have died if we did nothing, if we just carried on our life.

Now, I don’t think that would have been possible because you would have had people dying all over the place. This would not have been a normal life. How many people have even seen anybody die? You would have seen people dying on airplanes. You would have been seeing people dying in hotel lobbies. You would’ve seen death all over.

So I think, from a practical standpoint, that couldn’t have been carried out too far. But — but if you — if you did nothing, on the higher side, the number would be 2.2 and maybe even more, and on the lower side, 1.6 million people.

Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing | The White House

First of all, I do not care what Trump said.
I am not a Trump supporter in any way.

But I explained why Fauci was wrong at 4 million and it should be 1000 times less.
That is because he used a lethality rate 10 times too high, a number of people needing to recover 10 times too high because most people are already immune, and because he used an average death rate when we could reduce that by a factor of 40 by only allowing the young and healthy to volunteer for deliberate infection.

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby5, post: 25918932

The other is herd immunity, where some % has or get immunity and prevents the virus from finding new hosts.
That could kill some 10,000 people or so, but saves lives by ending it.

If you are truly a Trump supporting wannabe epidemiologist with herd immunity expertise where were you last March when Trump needed you to help him save the economy and 400,000 deaths now projected by the time Joe takes the oath of office on January 20.

You say science misled Trump last March away from herd immunity.

Here is science from last March:

Here's Why Herd Immunity Won't Save Us From The COVID-19 Pandemic
GIDEON MEYEROWITZ-KATZ
30 MARCH 2020

This is what's known as the herd immunity threshold. COVID-19 is, fortunately, much less infectious than mumps, with an estimated R0 of roughly 3.

With this number, the proportion of people who need to be infected is lower but still high, sitting at around 70 percent of the entire population.

Which brings us to why herd immunity could never be considered a preventative measure.

If 70 percent of your population is infected with a disease, it is by definition not prevention. How can it be? Most of the people in your country are sick! And the hopeful nonsense that you can reach that 70 percent by just infecting young people is simply absurd. If only young people are immune, you'd have clusters of older people with no immunity at all, making it incredibly risky for anyone over a certain age to leave their house lest they get infected, forever.

It's also worth thinking about the repercussions of this disastrous scenario – the best estimates put COVID-19 infection fatality rate at around 0.5-1 percent. If 70 percent of an entire population gets sick, that means that between 0.35-0.7 percent of everyone in a country could die, which is a catastrophic outcome.

With something like 10 percent of all infections needing to be hospitalised, you'd also see an enormous number of people very sick, which has huge implications for the country as well.

The sad fact is that herd immunity just isn't a solution to our pandemic woes. Yes, it may eventually happen anyway, but hoping that it will save us all is just not realistic. The time to discuss herd immunity is when we have a vaccine developed, and not one second earlier, because at that point we will be able to really stop the epidemic in its tracks.

Until we have a vaccine, anyone talking about herd immunity as a preventative strategy for COVID-19 is simply wrong

Here's Why Herd Immunity Won't Save Us From The COVID-19 Pandemic

It's hard to predict things in a pandemic. The situation changes so much on a daily basis that everything you thought you knew last week is wrong by the end of the day. Things are changing so fast that even the solid certainties that we thought we we

www.google.com

So where is your pro-herd immunity science from last March.?

I am sorry but I cannot take a Trump voters word that early this year herd immunity was the way to go - resulting in a total number of deaths 10,000 or less.

You should easily be able to see my number have to correct and Fauci has to be wrong because with only 225,000 dead out of 330 million, that is only 0.06%, so it is NOT killing a lot of people.
The lethality and natural immunity have to be way different than Fauci was predicting.
And it should be obvious.
Fauci only knew about the people testing positive. He was not aware that 90% of the people infected were asymptomatic.
Now think about what asymptomatic means? It means their immune system already inherently was able to identify and destroy the invading virus before there were any symptoms or the virus was able to spread.
The is the definition of inherent immunity.
With most people inherently immune, it would have taken very little to achieve full herd immunity.
For example, are you aware that of those 225,000 dead, only about 100 were children? That means even children all have some sort of inherent resistance.

 

[Rigby5]

Nope, you did not see anything work.Working means the epidemic is over.
No more deaths.

When was the New York model enacted simultaneously across the entire United States?

We have proof you are a fraud because you tell me the New York Model failed because it never achieved no more deaths.

Therefore it confirms your status as a typical Trump liar.

New York City Without Coronavirus Deaths Four Months After First Report
By Jennifer Peltz, Michael R. Sisak and Marina Villeneuve • Published July 12, 2020 •Updated on July 12, 2020 at 7:37 pm

New York City Without Coronavirus Deaths Four Months After First Report

New York City health officials reported zero deaths related to the novel coronavirus four months after the state’s first official death was recorded on March 11. According to initial data reported by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, no one died from the virus in New York City on...

www.nbcnewyork.com

PLEASE HELP saves lives. Quit lying.

That is silly.
NY never did well agt all, and is doing very badly now.

FLiRT summer: See maps and charts of the latest COVID wave

Graphs charting the coronavirus in New York State and New York City.

gothamist.com

And I am NOT at all a Trump supporter, in any way.
More of a progressive, liberal, socialist.